–“I never understood how letting everyone vote is a good thing”–Peter Sorrentino Well, I think originally jefferson’s idea was that being as inclusive as possible decreased the chances of concentrating power. Universal white males in 1856 White women in 1920 Minorities in 1965. So you can see what happens rather rapidly. The experiment has been a failure. We just need to rule. Return to rule for money and profit. 😉 Militia > King (General) > Judge > Sheriff > Family > Individual.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Purpose of Diversity The Defeat of Western Civilization?
Are calls for dramatically increasing cultural diversity essentially calls for the replacing of Western Civilization with something else? The roman empire was undermined by the same (((People))) by the same means, by selling similar fictionalisms to women and the underclasses, and rapid immigration overwhelming the military, which was what made Romans disciplined, invested in the civilization, and with shared values and experiences. In this era, we have seen marxism, cultural marxism, so called scientific socialism, postmodernism, and the industrialization of lying, using the same grammar and arguments, only this time with promise of economic, status, and political achievement, instead of after death. Make no mistake about it, in the years during and after the conquest of judea the insurrection against the aristocracy was aggressively pursued by conversion of the underclasses and as always, women – who are more susceptible to fantastic ideas due to the high frequency of psychosis and solipsism (about 1/3 of women, but approaching 40% in the west), and the rest conform to their standard. (another example of the most intolerant wins – even more so among women.) Make no mistake that the same process has been underway, and aggressively pursued in the postwar era. The result in the ancient world was the destruction of all major civilizations from africa to persia to rome, with a feeble byzantine city surviving by virtue of geography and wealth. Under Johnson the (((left))) was able to both destroy the black family through russian style relocation, turn our cities into wastelands for having done so, reversing tradition and aggressively immigrating the underclasses, so that they (((Left))) could achieve by immigration that which could not be achieved by their ideas. The purpose of the (((Left))) is genocide of western civilization.
-
The Purpose of Diversity The Defeat of Western Civilization?
Are calls for dramatically increasing cultural diversity essentially calls for the replacing of Western Civilization with something else? The roman empire was undermined by the same (((People))) by the same means, by selling similar fictionalisms to women and the underclasses, and rapid immigration overwhelming the military, which was what made Romans disciplined, invested in the civilization, and with shared values and experiences. In this era, we have seen marxism, cultural marxism, so called scientific socialism, postmodernism, and the industrialization of lying, using the same grammar and arguments, only this time with promise of economic, status, and political achievement, instead of after death. Make no mistake about it, in the years during and after the conquest of judea the insurrection against the aristocracy was aggressively pursued by conversion of the underclasses and as always, women – who are more susceptible to fantastic ideas due to the high frequency of psychosis and solipsism (about 1/3 of women, but approaching 40% in the west), and the rest conform to their standard. (another example of the most intolerant wins – even more so among women.) Make no mistake that the same process has been underway, and aggressively pursued in the postwar era. The result in the ancient world was the destruction of all major civilizations from africa to persia to rome, with a feeble byzantine city surviving by virtue of geography and wealth. Under Johnson the (((left))) was able to both destroy the black family through russian style relocation, turn our cities into wastelands for having done so, reversing tradition and aggressively immigrating the underclasses, so that they (((Left))) could achieve by immigration that which could not be achieved by their ideas. The purpose of the (((Left))) is genocide of western civilization.
-
A World Without Money?
A WORLD WITHOUT MONEY? —“What would happen if there were no money on earth?”– (Repost) Answered May 1, 2013 Believe it or not, this subject has been given quite a bit of treatment in the literature – mostly during the early part of the last century in response to the communist, socialist and fascist movements. REALITY: Almost everyone, on the planet, except for perhaps ~500M subsistence farmers would die in the first 30-90 days. Yes. Really. Seriously. MONEY Money makes planning of complex things possible. Humans literally cannot ‘think’ as we understand the term, without numbers, money, property, contracts, credit and interest. Just as drawings and written words help us remember things, numbers help us remember things we could not remember, think about, or compare without them. Money makes numbers possible to apply to things that are DIFFERENT. Whereas numbers without money can only be used for things that are the SAME. As such, we say that money makes it possible to compare objects that are otherwise incommensurable. Money renders the world commensurable: open to planning and the use of mathematics (measurement and forecasting). In practical terms, money and prices form an information system that tells us all what to do in real time in response to what others want and need. It is how we tell each other how to cooperate. It is the human social system. And the use of that social system, plus the capture of fossile fuel, has taken us out of ignorance and poverty. CONVERSELY What money and credit have also done is make it possible to breed again up to new malthusian levels. While Malthus was only half right, he was half right. Group selection accomplishes what malthus did not account for. THe general belief of ‘progressives’ is that technology will ‘save us again’ just like agrarianism, and then pastoralism saved us in the past. But the truth is we just breed up to these levels again, and reduce ourselves back to poverty. The problem then is that we must control our breeding. And that has been, except for a brief period in china, or the middle ages in England under Manorialism impossible to achieve. Partly because it is so profitable to sell things to people who bear children, and those children as they too mature. EXAMPLES THe US economy is primarily driven by housing, and the high rate of return on lending for housing, and the large supply of labor jobs for the production of housing. From this perspective, the exceptional nature of the american economy is not the product of ‘democracy’ or innovation, but the product of selling off a continent to waves of immigrants and their offspring, and using the profits from the sale of the (conquered) continent to invest in increasingly complex technologies. THe Chinese for example have figured this out and are doing the same thing but moving people from the ‘poor’ village farm to cities where they *hope* the population will be more productive than they were at subsistence farming. China can do this bcause it adopted consumer capitalism (money, prices and interest) and abandoned communism (no money, no prices, and no interest). The problem other countries face (India and say, Ukraine) is india is so pervasively corrupt that it’s not possible to create infrastructure without privatization of the investment through corruption, and the population is still expanding unsustainably in a dirty and hot environment. THe problem Ukraine faces, is that it cannot play ‘china’ because the lower levels of government are so corrupt and the country sees no demand for its currency, so the government cannot issue credit, and therefore the people remain poor. IN CLOSING When you say ‘money went away’ what you must also understand is that with money and prices will go the ability to communicate, and think. Literally. Humans would not be able to cooperate, communicate, plan and think without money. Worse, they would have no incentive to do so, because to have an incentive one must be able to think of something to do. And you couldn’t think of anything to do that you couldn’t do with your own two hands. THere is about 4 days worth of energy, and 14 days worth of food in the pipeline. If you made money vanish, you would need to make 6B people vanish along with it. You may find a more thorough, or a more simplistic answer elsewhere. But this is the answer, and there isn’t any alternative.
-
A World Without Money?
A WORLD WITHOUT MONEY? —“What would happen if there were no money on earth?”– (Repost) Answered May 1, 2013 Believe it or not, this subject has been given quite a bit of treatment in the literature – mostly during the early part of the last century in response to the communist, socialist and fascist movements. REALITY: Almost everyone, on the planet, except for perhaps ~500M subsistence farmers would die in the first 30-90 days. Yes. Really. Seriously. MONEY Money makes planning of complex things possible. Humans literally cannot ‘think’ as we understand the term, without numbers, money, property, contracts, credit and interest. Just as drawings and written words help us remember things, numbers help us remember things we could not remember, think about, or compare without them. Money makes numbers possible to apply to things that are DIFFERENT. Whereas numbers without money can only be used for things that are the SAME. As such, we say that money makes it possible to compare objects that are otherwise incommensurable. Money renders the world commensurable: open to planning and the use of mathematics (measurement and forecasting). In practical terms, money and prices form an information system that tells us all what to do in real time in response to what others want and need. It is how we tell each other how to cooperate. It is the human social system. And the use of that social system, plus the capture of fossile fuel, has taken us out of ignorance and poverty. CONVERSELY What money and credit have also done is make it possible to breed again up to new malthusian levels. While Malthus was only half right, he was half right. Group selection accomplishes what malthus did not account for. THe general belief of ‘progressives’ is that technology will ‘save us again’ just like agrarianism, and then pastoralism saved us in the past. But the truth is we just breed up to these levels again, and reduce ourselves back to poverty. The problem then is that we must control our breeding. And that has been, except for a brief period in china, or the middle ages in England under Manorialism impossible to achieve. Partly because it is so profitable to sell things to people who bear children, and those children as they too mature. EXAMPLES THe US economy is primarily driven by housing, and the high rate of return on lending for housing, and the large supply of labor jobs for the production of housing. From this perspective, the exceptional nature of the american economy is not the product of ‘democracy’ or innovation, but the product of selling off a continent to waves of immigrants and their offspring, and using the profits from the sale of the (conquered) continent to invest in increasingly complex technologies. THe Chinese for example have figured this out and are doing the same thing but moving people from the ‘poor’ village farm to cities where they *hope* the population will be more productive than they were at subsistence farming. China can do this bcause it adopted consumer capitalism (money, prices and interest) and abandoned communism (no money, no prices, and no interest). The problem other countries face (India and say, Ukraine) is india is so pervasively corrupt that it’s not possible to create infrastructure without privatization of the investment through corruption, and the population is still expanding unsustainably in a dirty and hot environment. THe problem Ukraine faces, is that it cannot play ‘china’ because the lower levels of government are so corrupt and the country sees no demand for its currency, so the government cannot issue credit, and therefore the people remain poor. IN CLOSING When you say ‘money went away’ what you must also understand is that with money and prices will go the ability to communicate, and think. Literally. Humans would not be able to cooperate, communicate, plan and think without money. Worse, they would have no incentive to do so, because to have an incentive one must be able to think of something to do. And you couldn’t think of anything to do that you couldn’t do with your own two hands. THere is about 4 days worth of energy, and 14 days worth of food in the pipeline. If you made money vanish, you would need to make 6B people vanish along with it. You may find a more thorough, or a more simplistic answer elsewhere. But this is the answer, and there isn’t any alternative.
-
There Are Plenty of Good Women…
There are plenty of good women. They are just rarely on the market precisely because they are good women. There are plenty of good men. They are just rarely on the market precisely because they are good men. The problem with good men and good women is that relationships do fail today, and they don’t maintain their sexual market value. And if they did, it’s probably that their relationships wouldn’t have failed. Maintain your sexual market value. It’s not complicated. Stop putting things in your mouth. Sleep. And get just a little exercise (walk a lot and fast).
-
There Are Plenty of Good Women…
There are plenty of good women. They are just rarely on the market precisely because they are good women. There are plenty of good men. They are just rarely on the market precisely because they are good men. The problem with good men and good women is that relationships do fail today, and they don’t maintain their sexual market value. And if they did, it’s probably that their relationships wouldn’t have failed. Maintain your sexual market value. It’s not complicated. Stop putting things in your mouth. Sleep. And get just a little exercise (walk a lot and fast).
-
Western Vs Jewish Ethics
Libertarian ethics derive from hebrew diasporic pastoralist ethics (those than can run away) whereas western sovereign ethics derive from western indo european agrarian militia ethics (those that remain present) – which is a difference between the short term temporal and longer term intertemporal. which is why libertarian ethics are limited to volition, not like western, inclusive of reciprocity. In other words, under western indo european ethics you warranty your words and deeds, whereas hebrew ethics are designed to be irreciprocal, and without warranty on purpose – as is stated in jewish law. Otherwise, if you don’t follow ethics of warranty, and instead if you follow jewish ethics, then there is no prohibition on creating and profiting from moral hazard (parasitism). And so if they follow irreciprocal ethics a group can specialize in profiting from moral hazard (parasitism), like lending usurious money to poor people, engaging in the slave trade, blackmail, slumlording and tax collection. Whereas moral peoples specialize in the lower returns on warrantable and reciprocal goods that do not create incentive to retaliate (kill). WHich is why jews in Europe had such a problem, (and had population bottlenecks). A low trust immoral parasitic population hosted by a high trust moral productive population will always lead to accumulated grievances and explosive retaliation. But, none of us can look i the mirror at our ancestors and recognize them for their criminality – although westerners since Burke certainly have done so. Most other civilizations lack the intellectual honesty to look in the mirror at their ancestors and understand that their punishments were earned. In the case of the west our adoption of christianity demilitarized and fragmented europe to the point where it was the viking invasions that restored the western ethos, and the reintroduction of greek thought that lead to it’s return to it’s traditional vector after the damage of the abrahamic dark ages.
-
Western Vs Jewish Ethics
Libertarian ethics derive from hebrew diasporic pastoralist ethics (those than can run away) whereas western sovereign ethics derive from western indo european agrarian militia ethics (those that remain present) – which is a difference between the short term temporal and longer term intertemporal. which is why libertarian ethics are limited to volition, not like western, inclusive of reciprocity. In other words, under western indo european ethics you warranty your words and deeds, whereas hebrew ethics are designed to be irreciprocal, and without warranty on purpose – as is stated in jewish law. Otherwise, if you don’t follow ethics of warranty, and instead if you follow jewish ethics, then there is no prohibition on creating and profiting from moral hazard (parasitism). And so if they follow irreciprocal ethics a group can specialize in profiting from moral hazard (parasitism), like lending usurious money to poor people, engaging in the slave trade, blackmail, slumlording and tax collection. Whereas moral peoples specialize in the lower returns on warrantable and reciprocal goods that do not create incentive to retaliate (kill). WHich is why jews in Europe had such a problem, (and had population bottlenecks). A low trust immoral parasitic population hosted by a high trust moral productive population will always lead to accumulated grievances and explosive retaliation. But, none of us can look i the mirror at our ancestors and recognize them for their criminality – although westerners since Burke certainly have done so. Most other civilizations lack the intellectual honesty to look in the mirror at their ancestors and understand that their punishments were earned. In the case of the west our adoption of christianity demilitarized and fragmented europe to the point where it was the viking invasions that restored the western ethos, and the reintroduction of greek thought that lead to it’s return to it’s traditional vector after the damage of the abrahamic dark ages.
-
Rome: We Begin And End With The Militia
–“The story of [the Empire’s] ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple [the color of the robes of the Roman magistrates, ie: THE LAW]. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered [the citizens both] alike (each other,) formidable to their sovereign, and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine [Christianity]; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.”— Edward Gibbon. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West”, Chapter 38 IT ALL BEGINS AND ENDS WITH OUR MILITIA, AND OUR MILITIA BY THEIR LAW, AND THEIR LAW BY EXCEPTIONLESS INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY.