THE MIDDLE CLASS NEGOTIATES. ARISTOCRACY PROSECUTES. WOMEN, PRIESTS, AND STATE APOLOGIZE. [I] prosecute falsehoods. I’m agnostic in prosecuting falsehoods. I prosecute libertarian and conservative falsehoods as hard or harder than I prosecute progressive falsehoods. Why? Because libertarian and conservative literature, philosophy, and rhetoric has been a demonstrated failure in competition against socialist, feminist, and postmodern matriarchal literature, philosophy, and arguments. Why? Because women vote more consistently against THE GREAT GENDER COMPROMISES, of the west, and because women are the dominant consumers, and because women are the most pliable customers of the profiteers in the academy media, and state. No matriarchal civilizations survive. Why? It’s suicidal. We give women and those who profit from their impulses uncommon liberty, yet not adequate restraints. We prosecute profiting from the sale of all other forms of harm. Why don’t we prosecute those who profit from this kind of harm: genocide.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Debating Molyneux isn’t Useful for Either of Us. Discussion Is.
—“Honestly though, there needs to be a debate between Curt and Stefan.”— [L]ook I love Stefan Molyneux. I don’t want to debate him. I think the two of us together to could radically transform the libertarian and conservative movements for the better. I think we could have a panel discussion with the two of us, where we both answered questions from libertarians. I think what you’d find is that I answer some things differently. But the overlap is enormous. Stefan is an exceptional advocate and educator. I’m a pretty hard core philosopher. I wish I could communicate as well as Stefan. I can’t. I never will. Heck, there are already guys that are better at communicating my ideas than I am. It’s just like debating Hoppe. The argument would be terribly technical but in the end it’s matter of profound agreement (at least on my end). I would like to have a panel discussion maybe to show people how we would *say the same thing* differently. I have a luxury these guys dont. I didn’t start out with a libertarian cause. I started out trying to solve the problem of communicating the western group evolutionary strategy in ratio-scientific terms. And I’ve been working with software a long time to support myself so to speak. Software is an existentially demanding and very precise language. So habituating strict construction while avoiding rationalism and justificationism made it easier for me to fix Hoppe’s kantian arguments, and not fall into the justificationary problem Stefan Molyneux has faced. I had to attack libertarianism for three reasons: 1) I had to test my theories against criticism – I”m a scientist. There is just no other way than to get into a street fight and win without all the Queensbury rules that support the entrenched paradigm. 2) I had to end the immorality of Rothbardianism as a distraction for libertarians, NRx, and conservatives. Otherwise I couldn’t unify conservatives and libertarians again behind a single movement. I had to deprive libertines of moral ground. 3) (Honestly) I knew it would draw fire and attention and it was good marketing. I don’t think it takes any work to attack Conservatism. Movement conservatism so evidently failed, that no one even argues using it.
-
Debating Molyneux isn’t Useful for Either of Us. Discussion Is.
—“Honestly though, there needs to be a debate between Curt and Stefan.”— [L]ook I love Stefan Molyneux. I don’t want to debate him. I think the two of us together to could radically transform the libertarian and conservative movements for the better. I think we could have a panel discussion with the two of us, where we both answered questions from libertarians. I think what you’d find is that I answer some things differently. But the overlap is enormous. Stefan is an exceptional advocate and educator. I’m a pretty hard core philosopher. I wish I could communicate as well as Stefan. I can’t. I never will. Heck, there are already guys that are better at communicating my ideas than I am. It’s just like debating Hoppe. The argument would be terribly technical but in the end it’s matter of profound agreement (at least on my end). I would like to have a panel discussion maybe to show people how we would *say the same thing* differently. I have a luxury these guys dont. I didn’t start out with a libertarian cause. I started out trying to solve the problem of communicating the western group evolutionary strategy in ratio-scientific terms. And I’ve been working with software a long time to support myself so to speak. Software is an existentially demanding and very precise language. So habituating strict construction while avoiding rationalism and justificationism made it easier for me to fix Hoppe’s kantian arguments, and not fall into the justificationary problem Stefan Molyneux has faced. I had to attack libertarianism for three reasons: 1) I had to test my theories against criticism – I”m a scientist. There is just no other way than to get into a street fight and win without all the Queensbury rules that support the entrenched paradigm. 2) I had to end the immorality of Rothbardianism as a distraction for libertarians, NRx, and conservatives. Otherwise I couldn’t unify conservatives and libertarians again behind a single movement. I had to deprive libertines of moral ground. 3) (Honestly) I knew it would draw fire and attention and it was good marketing. I don’t think it takes any work to attack Conservatism. Movement conservatism so evidently failed, that no one even argues using it.
-
Is Scalping Moral
Is your example different from someone buying blocks of the best tix for a rock concert, and then selling those tix for profit at far higher prices?
Well, I can go other way with a private property, but not common property. We cannot privatize the commons. that’s the entire point of commons. I’m not big on scalping. Although what scalping does is make people who have money and no time pay a premium for not waiting in line – and to some degree I find that hard to argue with.
-
Is Scalping Moral
Is your example different from someone buying blocks of the best tix for a rock concert, and then selling those tix for profit at far higher prices?
Well, I can go other way with a private property, but not common property. We cannot privatize the commons. that’s the entire point of commons. I’m not big on scalping. Although what scalping does is make people who have money and no time pay a premium for not waiting in line – and to some degree I find that hard to argue with.
-
Walter Block’s Libertine Immorality
[H]ere in Ukraine, speculators buy up appointments to apply for visas, and then sell them for 1000UAH (about $50, in a country where people make $200 a month and raise children on it.) Now, according to libertarianism this is moral, ethical, and non-aggression. According to propertarianism (and human nature) this is not a productive, fully informed voluntary exchange free of negative externality. But so called ‘parasitic’ libertine rothbardianism claims this is moral. Yet that which is moral is that which incentivizes us to cooperate rather than incentivizes us to prey upon one another. Why doesn’t the government require that all appointments scheduled are for the individual applying for the visa? Well, because they’re in on the parasitism (corruption). Now, I want to know why I don’t kill you and take your stuff. The only reason not to is if we engage in fully informed, productive, voluntary transfer free of negative externality. Libertinism is just an excuse to continue usurious parasitism of the ghetto. It’s not moral. It’s immoral.
-
Walter Block’s Libertine Immorality
[H]ere in Ukraine, speculators buy up appointments to apply for visas, and then sell them for 1000UAH (about $50, in a country where people make $200 a month and raise children on it.) Now, according to libertarianism this is moral, ethical, and non-aggression. According to propertarianism (and human nature) this is not a productive, fully informed voluntary exchange free of negative externality. But so called ‘parasitic’ libertine rothbardianism claims this is moral. Yet that which is moral is that which incentivizes us to cooperate rather than incentivizes us to prey upon one another. Why doesn’t the government require that all appointments scheduled are for the individual applying for the visa? Well, because they’re in on the parasitism (corruption). Now, I want to know why I don’t kill you and take your stuff. The only reason not to is if we engage in fully informed, productive, voluntary transfer free of negative externality. Libertinism is just an excuse to continue usurious parasitism of the ghetto. It’s not moral. It’s immoral.
-
Definitions: Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science
Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science A religion consists of a set of myths and rules the purpose of which is to resist outsiders, and to set limits on behavior or to be treated as an outsider and deprived of opportunity and insurance of the in-group. Hence most religions evolve with the weak, who have no means of competition except resistance and exclusion. An ideology consists of a set of ideas the purpose of which is to excite subclasses to act under democracy to obtain political power. Ideologies are used to obtain followers. Likewise followers, follow ideologies. Hence most ideologies if not all ideologies are lower and working class ideologies, and most followers from the lower and working classes. A philosophical system provides criteria for making judgements in the pursuit of preferences. Philosophies are used to obtain peers. Likewise peers seek philosophies with which to pursue preferences together with their peers. hence all philosophies are class philosophies, and most philosophies are middle class philosophies. A scientific system provides for making truthful (true) statements for the description of operations (transformations instate). Scientific systems are used to decide, create, invent, and to provide power over nature and man. Hence, science . Hence science is a largely professional or upper middle class philosophy. A legal system provides a means of resolving differences so that a group can cooperate in the production of generations, goods and services. Legal systems are used to rule others. But require strength to enforce. Hence most legal systems are the product of the upper classes that rule by force, and make use of scientific, philosophical, ideological, and religious systems to speak to classes while ruling them with law and violence. War is a scientific not emotional process. It is only the men at the bottom who need inspiration. And it is the foot-soldier at the bottom whose tenacity most determines a battle. So the relationship between the top and the bottom is necessary, and this is why non-martial polities cannot compete with martial polities – we fight together even if we conceptualize differently.
-
Definitions: Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science
Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science A religion consists of a set of myths and rules the purpose of which is to resist outsiders, and to set limits on behavior or to be treated as an outsider and deprived of opportunity and insurance of the in-group. Hence most religions evolve with the weak, who have no means of competition except resistance and exclusion. An ideology consists of a set of ideas the purpose of which is to excite subclasses to act under democracy to obtain political power. Ideologies are used to obtain followers. Likewise followers, follow ideologies. Hence most ideologies if not all ideologies are lower and working class ideologies, and most followers from the lower and working classes. A philosophical system provides criteria for making judgements in the pursuit of preferences. Philosophies are used to obtain peers. Likewise peers seek philosophies with which to pursue preferences together with their peers. hence all philosophies are class philosophies, and most philosophies are middle class philosophies. A scientific system provides for making truthful (true) statements for the description of operations (transformations instate). Scientific systems are used to decide, create, invent, and to provide power over nature and man. Hence, science . Hence science is a largely professional or upper middle class philosophy. A legal system provides a means of resolving differences so that a group can cooperate in the production of generations, goods and services. Legal systems are used to rule others. But require strength to enforce. Hence most legal systems are the product of the upper classes that rule by force, and make use of scientific, philosophical, ideological, and religious systems to speak to classes while ruling them with law and violence. War is a scientific not emotional process. It is only the men at the bottom who need inspiration. And it is the foot-soldier at the bottom whose tenacity most determines a battle. So the relationship between the top and the bottom is necessary, and this is why non-martial polities cannot compete with martial polities – we fight together even if we conceptualize differently.
-
Quotes
If you eliminate the possibility of political action then the civic society and the market are the only means of achieving one’s ends. – Markets in everything. Natural law: nonparasitic cooperation requires productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited externalities of the same criteria. I think the descriptive model is that of king as first among equals, and nobles as franchisees. We didn’t really invent the partnership and corporation. We were practicing them for all of our history. We have been capitalists for long enough that we have inverted the conceptual problem of interpreting the past: the only marginal difference in the value of the corporation was the quality and volume of the land held for mining, farming, grazing. Why is it necessary for governments to legislate norms? Why do governments have the epistemic, moral, or practical justification (and this is where justification matters) for the legislation of norms? If we cooperate by natural law (non-imposition) then the civic society is the logical outcome – unless there is social devolution because of heterogeneity. Why should I appeal to the provision of commons (government) for that which is a natural law (court)? but if such things are the deterministic consequence of natural law, why must the government legislate them? In other words, under a constitution of non-imposition, is not the civic society a deterministic outcome? SO when colonizing an area we must put in place a constitution of natural law. Now lets return to the question: if we have judges of natural law in that new territory, is legislation necessary, or are judges of natural law sufficient? Every man fights. No Man Quits. We must suppress parasitism and never again let down our guardianship of morality and liberty. #NewRight A man who does not fight for liberty and morality is a coward and a thief – and has not earned liberty or morality by his actions. #NewRight Ergo you have no virtue whatsoever if you fail to use violence to suppress parasitism in interpersonal(moral) and political form. #NewRight So the way to restore the west is the organized application of violence to suppress the natural parasitism of women and parasitic classes. Political Liberty and Personal Morality require the organized use of personal violence to suppress parasitism political and interpersonal. So it is not that I have some passion for violence, but a passion to prosecute those who fail to construct liberty while claiming virtues. We lost our civilization by trying to signal to women and avoid the high cost of using violence to impose morality and liberty. #NewRight Women immediately sought about allying with the lower classes to destroy property rights and the high cost of preserving them.#NewRight The purpose of political rights is to select the commons we produce with the scarce proceeds from production and reproduction.#NewRight One need no political rights if one possesses property rights – unless one seeks to violate property rights. #NewRight Granting women political equality was impossible – they cannot pay the cost of violence necessary for the construction of morality.#NewRight Those who eschew violence seek only to escape the high cost of creating a condition of personal morality and political liberty. #NewRight Why? Because violence = intrinsically neutral value. If put to moral ends a virtue and to immoral ends a crime. Might Can Make #NewRight —Nietzsche holds that moral values are not conducive to the flourishing of human excellence,— You mean, ‘moral norms’ not moral laws. As a german he is both a conflator and a prisoner of conflation of others. Non-operationalism bites him too. All moral laws are negative. I am having a hard time understanding what inspiration to greatness (aesthetics) and morals have to do with one another. (Nothing) —“Every choice human being,” says Nietzsche, “strives instinctively for a citadel and a secrecy where he is saved from the crowd, the many, the great majority…”— I want to be insulated from the political folly of the crowd. On the other hand I love the moral classes regardless of wealth or sophistication, and despise the immoral classes regardless of wealth or sophistication. Why? I am trying to end the false virtue signaling of the pacifists, and restore responsibility for the preservation of commons. #NewRight The Middle Class Thinkers could not solve social science. Why? It would have been an admission their enlightenment was a failure. #NewRight Sorry. I’m not a Racist. I know you’d like it if I was. But Truth is a universal. I do truth. Social Science. Solutions. For all mankind. Fantasizing about desirable end points demonstrates one’s ignorance. Knowledge consists of knowing existentially possible operations, and how to arrange those operations to produce the desired outcome. SOCIAL SCIENCE: Natural Law, Monarchy, Regional Nobility, Market Commons, Family, Nationalism. When I use the term Monarchy, I use it in the narrow sense as a property holder of territory and formal institutions, where the monarch provides the ultimate veto power over contracts for commons, and the judiciary ultimate veto power over natural law.
(I just realized that for all of school and university I only liked the social circumstance – it was a calm safe social place – but I generally ignored the teachers and professors and just read the books, and couldn’t’ care less about the tests. There are only two professors I felt I learned anything from (rhetoric, and political science). The rest were just discussion leaders. I learned everything from books and almost nothing from people. )
I have understood the german secret. the secret anglos lost. the oath. that is all it is. nothing more. the oath alone produces the culture. Almost all wealth today consists of promises (obligations) that are only remittable (payable) if the economic velocity continues unabated. Most paper wealth only exists then as momentum. End the momentum, and end the wealth. End the wealth, end the influence. There is no equality among men; only better or worse in this way or that. There is no rest or respite for us. Rule is costly. But one must rule or be ruled. The church only cares for itself. It has no truck with Europa. It never did. We were but excuse. Labor for the fields. Coin for the tithe. Fools for the book of lies. Rule or be ruled. Having failed at the colonial program because of its civil war,the west is now colonized by the barbarians it would have civilized.#NewRight
The longer I work on the necessity of a judicial priesthood, the longer I study the Templars(bankers), the Inquisition(judges), the closer I come to the model I’m looking for. The problem is always paying for the initial stages. The first phase must produce sufficient confiscation that the men can be fed and armed. Yet wholesale predation on the islamic model (ISIS) is counter-productive.
Living in isolated cubes, watching fake friends, belonging to fake families, obtaining status from consumer goods. The mirror lies. SERF. Man I do NOT wanna be roped into populism but it’s like a force of gravity.
FROM THE ART OF DUELING: “The practice is severely censured by all religious and thinking people; yet it has very justly been remarked, that ‘the great gentleness and complacency of modern manners, and those respectful attentions of one man to another, that at present render the social discourses of life far more agreeable and decent, than among the most civilized nations of antiquity; must be ascribed, in some degree to this absurd custom.’ It is certainly both awful and distressing to see a young person cut off suddenly in a duel, particularly if he be the father of a family; but the loss of a few lives is a mere trifle, when compared with the benefits resulting to Society at large. I should consider it very unwise in the members of government, to adopt any measures that would enforce the prohibition of duelling…the man who falls in a duel, and the individual who is killed by the overturn of a stage-coach, are both unfortunate victims to a practice from which we derive great advantage. It would be absurd to prohibit stage-travelling-because, occasionally, a few lives are lost by an overturn.”
So they Reporter asks me “What do you have to say to our politicians about corruption?” And, I said something along the lines of “nothing. All politicians are corrupt.” Then “The reason they get away with corruption is the person in the mirror: you let them.” Then ” So, I have something to say to Ukrainian mothers: raise your sons to fight for liberty, or you shall never have liberty.”
The longbow were decisive in something like four major battles. After that the french learned that the cavalry must break the archer’s lines before they can set up a defensive position. It looks like the bend (pull) of a long bow varied from 80/100lbs to 160/180lbs. Skeletons of archers show the stress. The upper body strength of these men must have been freaking amazing. And men had to be raised to use them. They could not just equip men with the technology. Conversely, we can teach almost anyone competency with a rifle in a few sessions.
The duel was outlawed only because we allowed champions (substitutes). This led to the evolution of a series of hired murderers. It was this reason that the duel did not survive. If you speak the truth, you can construct an argument, not complaint, sarcasam, ridicule. If not, then you do not speak the truth. #NewRight The Torah, The Bible and the Koran are the greatest acts of fraud in human history. Why do we tolerate fraud in the commons? #NewRight ( The more radical I allow myself to become, the more satisfied I become as a westerner, as a man, as a human being. I suspect this will be a universal feeling for all western men – those who are still men that is. ) #NewRight I am pretty confident that Russians think they are doing good just like Americans. Both are idiots. Mind your own fucking business and severely punish the wicked. You need to take it personally. There is a very great chance we are going to bring about a civil war this year. Own it. #NewRight I want to make Vlad the Impaler look like a candy striper. British: desperately seeking congratulations. Americans: desperately seeking attention. Canadians desperately seeking mediocrity. Diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie while looking for a rock. Strategy is having a rock in hand. Aspies have trouble learning to converse in large part because it is very hard to figure how to lie constantly like everyone else. Luke Lynch: I wonder if Wittgenstein’s attempt to understand his own autism may have influenced his philosophical preoccupations.
If your concept of god is “him who created the rules of the universe”, then if Physical law, Natural Law, Common Law, Norms, Traditions, Myths and Rituals are identical, then man has followed the commands of god and become one with god’s deigns. And only evil does otherwise. Any religion incompatible with physical and natural law is not divine: it is either error or the work of the devil.
Just as I’m a good Anglo boy, and Hoppe is a good German boy, Rothbard was a good Jewish boy who intuited that separatism (the ethics between nations) could be universalized as an ethic between individuals. All groups make this mistake. Westerners (wrongly) intuit universal inclusion. Jews (wrongly) interpret universal separatism. These are not universals but group evolutionary strategies that facilitate group survival amidst competition. I believe I know more about Anarchism than any man other than perhaps Hoppe. But that’s like saying I also know a great deal about lying and deception. I would not advocate lying and deception, and I would not advocate anarchism. I’d advocate truth and nomocracy. Truth is enough.
My (Amazing) ex-wife and I used to go on lots of walks and talk about all sorts of things. Men love to walk and talk. But the subject of the talking matters a great deal. I can go to prison as a CEO for the actions of my subordinates, but a politician cannot? There is no better way to be remembered in history as freeing your people by violence from invasion made possible by weak leaders.
WE ALL FAILED Anglo, American, French, German, Jewish We all tried to position our group evolutionary strategy, as a universal moral code, each of us using our internal method of social argument: empirical, legal, moral, rational, pseudoscientific. WE ALL FAILED Truth is enough. FRANK: I can’t argue with that! The hard part, however, is knowing when you have some universal truth (and the solution lies in discovering when what you have is NOT true). I use the term ‘Limits’ because I am fairly sure that it is erroneous to call what works false when it is the justification not the recipe that seems to incrementally expand. FRANK: I think I understand what you mean to mean, and if I am right in my understanding, I agree! Still, sometimes what works satisfyingly for a time is subsequently found replaceable by something that works even better — for example, the discovery that Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativistic mechanics that holds exactly only in the limit of v approaching zero, but is “good enough” an approximation for most government work when v is << c).
Moral language is a failure because they convinced useful idiots that morality was subjective. Financial and economic language defeats them. Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Keynes, Rothbard, Strauss. The old right failed to crush pseudoscience. Truth crushes pseudoscience. TRUTH Is it that Germans have no pseudoscience because they have rationalism and German philosophical literature instead? What can I learn from that? Is the ineffectiveness of Anglo literature because of science and law? Why? Why are we the #NewRight? Because we earned it. The West rose because we invented Testimony. We tell the truth. The Old Right didn’t. If I write a thorough analysis people complain. If I write pithily people both complain and misunderstand. No happy medium exists. smile emoticon
If you want a solid argument you must supply a chain. if you want to inform you create an image. the chain is hard to understand, but once understood, correct. the image is easy to understand a little, but misunderstand a lot. It’s problem of costs
The moral high ground: If you cannot accept voluntary exchange with us in the production of commons we cannot tolerate your existence. The problem with western civilization is easily found – in the mirror. Civilizations do what warriors allow them to do. And nothing more. The strong plan and act. The weak gossip and complain. Bitching about the present, criticizing the past, is not the same as providing a solution. Creating a plan. Acting on it. (Ignorance whines)