Theme: Civilization

  • Nailing Fake Christians on The Rhetorical Cross

    Oct 29, 2019, 12:35 PM (possibly offensive) (necessary for preservation of christianity in european civlization) (the ‘harsh words’ for christians unwilling to accept the compromise with their scientific, rational, moral(traditional), non-theological christian peers.

    —“Modern Christianity just isn’t compatible with your ideas and will be a weak point if you adopt them. Christian concept of love and forgiveness is truly at odds. Islamic religion are far more inline with your concept. Eye for an eye is a neutral concept, restriction of free speech like lying, punishment for traitorous speech (their blasphemy concept), self defense of property and life is encouraged, rejection of debauchery is absolute and host of other issue make Islam superior for nation building. If you must hold onto Christianity, the older roots of christianity will work the best.”— Jay Smith

    Aside from the fact that you claim wisdom, knowledge, understanding, that you do not possess, or you would argue both sides and compare them, I think I have studied this subject as thoroughly as anyone in history with the least tolerance for lies from either side. We can accommodate christianity because christianity is compatible with the natural law, and european high trust peoples compatible with christian tolerance and charity – to a point. But christianity has failed in the ancient, medieval, and modern world to solve the problem of politics, and at present universalist christianity and christians are hostile enemies of western civlization. So if instead we limit Christian tolerance to “our own’ and prevent Christians from lying to themselves that they are doing good by helping others than their own – virtue signaling, not doing good. And if we can embody natural law and christian tolerance (love) in the constitution, then we can eliminate the evils of marxism, postmodernism, feminism, judaism and islam, that seek to destroy our civilization, and maintain scientific, rational, moral, and theological strains of christian thought. I understand. You want to promote the lie that faith is truth so that you don’t have to work so hard at preserving your faith. I understand that. But it just means your a liar, a parasite, and a thief, and you have no faith if you cannot accept both the truth AND faith together. If you cannot, then you have no faith. you are just a liar – no different from a drug addict making excuses for your addition to your lies. We can no longer tolerate cancerous Christians. Either have faith, truth, and honor and duty, or you are not a Christian or a European you are just another useful idiot of the enemy, and a cancer undermining western civilization. Faith is not incompatible with truth unless you have no faith. If you cannot bear truthful christianity, rational christianity, moral (traditional) christianity, and theological christianity together, you are no christian. You are just a selfish, lying, parasite, and an enemy of our people.

  • Nailing Fake Christians on The Rhetorical Cross

    Oct 29, 2019, 12:35 PM (possibly offensive) (necessary for preservation of christianity in european civlization) (the ‘harsh words’ for christians unwilling to accept the compromise with their scientific, rational, moral(traditional), non-theological christian peers.

    —“Modern Christianity just isn’t compatible with your ideas and will be a weak point if you adopt them. Christian concept of love and forgiveness is truly at odds. Islamic religion are far more inline with your concept. Eye for an eye is a neutral concept, restriction of free speech like lying, punishment for traitorous speech (their blasphemy concept), self defense of property and life is encouraged, rejection of debauchery is absolute and host of other issue make Islam superior for nation building. If you must hold onto Christianity, the older roots of christianity will work the best.”— Jay Smith

    Aside from the fact that you claim wisdom, knowledge, understanding, that you do not possess, or you would argue both sides and compare them, I think I have studied this subject as thoroughly as anyone in history with the least tolerance for lies from either side. We can accommodate christianity because christianity is compatible with the natural law, and european high trust peoples compatible with christian tolerance and charity – to a point. But christianity has failed in the ancient, medieval, and modern world to solve the problem of politics, and at present universalist christianity and christians are hostile enemies of western civlization. So if instead we limit Christian tolerance to “our own’ and prevent Christians from lying to themselves that they are doing good by helping others than their own – virtue signaling, not doing good. And if we can embody natural law and christian tolerance (love) in the constitution, then we can eliminate the evils of marxism, postmodernism, feminism, judaism and islam, that seek to destroy our civilization, and maintain scientific, rational, moral, and theological strains of christian thought. I understand. You want to promote the lie that faith is truth so that you don’t have to work so hard at preserving your faith. I understand that. But it just means your a liar, a parasite, and a thief, and you have no faith if you cannot accept both the truth AND faith together. If you cannot, then you have no faith. you are just a liar – no different from a drug addict making excuses for your addition to your lies. We can no longer tolerate cancerous Christians. Either have faith, truth, and honor and duty, or you are not a Christian or a European you are just another useful idiot of the enemy, and a cancer undermining western civilization. Faith is not incompatible with truth unless you have no faith. If you cannot bear truthful christianity, rational christianity, moral (traditional) christianity, and theological christianity together, you are no christian. You are just a selfish, lying, parasite, and an enemy of our people.

  • Tripartism to Quadripartism

    Tripartism to Quadripartism https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/tripartism-to-quadripartism/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:01:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265674442111430659

  • Tripartism to Quadripartism

    Oct 29, 2019, 12:19 PM

    —“Those who Fight, Those who Pray, Those who Work What’s the fourth class?”— Richard Hall

    ^Burghers (the middle class). “Those who Trade” The middle class emerged only once production was able to scale. And production could only scale once productivity was high enough to produce sufficient surpluses to scale. We can modernize Tripartism and simply call them The Defensive, Military, Judicial classes, The Administrative, Clerical, Educational classes, and Productive Financial Entrepreneurial, Professional, Managerial, Craftsman and Labor classes. None of us mention the underclasses, because until recently that meant ‘slave’ because they lacked agency, family, resources, and knowledge to be allowed to ‘roam free’ without an ‘owner’ to take responsibility for them – meaning defend the population from them. But since we develop elites in each of the Military, Administrative, and Productive classes, leaving the majority of the population managing only personal capital, especially the family, and making use of whatever elites that most serve their needs, we tend to separate the economic (Financial, Entrepreneurial,) from the Professional, Managerial, craftsmanly, and laboring classes. The middle east and far east, because of flood river valleys, and irrigation in them, combined the organization of production into the priesthood, and into the state, and the merchant class, even wealthy, traded specialty goods more than organized commodity capital goods in production. Preserving the trading, craftsman, and workman classes, and maintaining what we consider the capitalist class into the state. The problem is of course, state inefficiency and parasitism. The big economic shift occurred when the middle class Germanic Europe, was able to accumulate enough capital to develop the Hanseatic league on the continent – thanks to the lack of a strong central state – and create its own rule of law, own defense, own outposts, and trade networks. It ruled for three hundred years dragging northern Europe into post medieval wealth. The British people able to do the same in the colonies by the same reason: a military state, but an entrepreneurial middle class, capable of funding it’s own adventure. The colonies ended up being a better long term investment, which is why germany, after fighting off napoleon, needed to unify to prevent another despotic french catastrophe, sought to expand her influences (rightly so in my understanding) into territories it had economically domesticated, putting her into competition with Russia and England by unbalancing the world distribution of powers england found (like the usa wrongly does today) the optimum for commercial gains. The British Americans took this to the ultimate test, and created a purely middle class civilization – escaping both church and state – preserving the germanic rule of law, and individual sovereignty. And while england created empire, germany created science, we created opportunity and productivity, and the rest is history.

  • Tripartism to Quadripartism

    Oct 29, 2019, 12:19 PM

    —“Those who Fight, Those who Pray, Those who Work What’s the fourth class?”— Richard Hall

    ^Burghers (the middle class). “Those who Trade” The middle class emerged only once production was able to scale. And production could only scale once productivity was high enough to produce sufficient surpluses to scale. We can modernize Tripartism and simply call them The Defensive, Military, Judicial classes, The Administrative, Clerical, Educational classes, and Productive Financial Entrepreneurial, Professional, Managerial, Craftsman and Labor classes. None of us mention the underclasses, because until recently that meant ‘slave’ because they lacked agency, family, resources, and knowledge to be allowed to ‘roam free’ without an ‘owner’ to take responsibility for them – meaning defend the population from them. But since we develop elites in each of the Military, Administrative, and Productive classes, leaving the majority of the population managing only personal capital, especially the family, and making use of whatever elites that most serve their needs, we tend to separate the economic (Financial, Entrepreneurial,) from the Professional, Managerial, craftsmanly, and laboring classes. The middle east and far east, because of flood river valleys, and irrigation in them, combined the organization of production into the priesthood, and into the state, and the merchant class, even wealthy, traded specialty goods more than organized commodity capital goods in production. Preserving the trading, craftsman, and workman classes, and maintaining what we consider the capitalist class into the state. The problem is of course, state inefficiency and parasitism. The big economic shift occurred when the middle class Germanic Europe, was able to accumulate enough capital to develop the Hanseatic league on the continent – thanks to the lack of a strong central state – and create its own rule of law, own defense, own outposts, and trade networks. It ruled for three hundred years dragging northern Europe into post medieval wealth. The British people able to do the same in the colonies by the same reason: a military state, but an entrepreneurial middle class, capable of funding it’s own adventure. The colonies ended up being a better long term investment, which is why germany, after fighting off napoleon, needed to unify to prevent another despotic french catastrophe, sought to expand her influences (rightly so in my understanding) into territories it had economically domesticated, putting her into competition with Russia and England by unbalancing the world distribution of powers england found (like the usa wrongly does today) the optimum for commercial gains. The British Americans took this to the ultimate test, and created a purely middle class civilization – escaping both church and state – preserving the germanic rule of law, and individual sovereignty. And while england created empire, germany created science, we created opportunity and productivity, and the rest is history.

  • Oct 29, 2019, 3:17 PM (contemplating the biases of indians who participate in ou

    Oct 29, 2019, 3:17 PM (contemplating the biases of indians who participate in our debates.) I think I understand the frustrations I have with indian’s who try to participate in these conversations, whether educated in india or the states. First of all, i do appreciate the rather odd optimism free of evidence endemic in indian culture. it’s what i admire. But, in india, or in an immigrant indian family, or in an indian immigrant community, those with first generation educations have the “doctor problem”, or the ’60’s kid problem’ meaning that when you are surrounded by generations people drastically different in educational knowledge and subsequent ability you overestimate your knowledge and ability, and when you come to America you are ‘educated’ in our academy that markets to that demographic, and sells sociological psychological nonsense in order to preserve income from that demographic – by not ‘correcting’ you and ‘insulting’ you by doing so. This is why our academy is ridiculous now. At least European Americans are educated by habituation in the long history, culture, and information flow of eastern civlization, and our optimism is in our ability to work hard and not be blamed if we fail for our heroic efforts. Or we are optimistic (badly) in our estimations of people from other cultures because we do not realize how Aristotelianism, rule of law, truthful speech, responsibility for the commons, But it’s not some naive optimism that ‘everything is gonna be alright’. Regardless of what civilization or culture you are from, I’m not one of those professors paid to coddle you with comforting falsehoods, or pretense of respect, in exchange for preserving the income stream for the university, or my job. I know my job. My job is jurisprudence. I’m a prosecutor.

  • Oct 29, 2019, 3:17 PM (contemplating the biases of indians who participate in ou

    Oct 29, 2019, 3:17 PM (contemplating the biases of indians who participate in our debates.) I think I understand the frustrations I have with indian’s who try to participate in these conversations, whether educated in india or the states. First of all, i do appreciate the rather odd optimism free of evidence endemic in indian culture. it’s what i admire. But, in india, or in an immigrant indian family, or in an indian immigrant community, those with first generation educations have the “doctor problem”, or the ’60’s kid problem’ meaning that when you are surrounded by generations people drastically different in educational knowledge and subsequent ability you overestimate your knowledge and ability, and when you come to America you are ‘educated’ in our academy that markets to that demographic, and sells sociological psychological nonsense in order to preserve income from that demographic – by not ‘correcting’ you and ‘insulting’ you by doing so. This is why our academy is ridiculous now. At least European Americans are educated by habituation in the long history, culture, and information flow of eastern civlization, and our optimism is in our ability to work hard and not be blamed if we fail for our heroic efforts. Or we are optimistic (badly) in our estimations of people from other cultures because we do not realize how Aristotelianism, rule of law, truthful speech, responsibility for the commons, But it’s not some naive optimism that ‘everything is gonna be alright’. Regardless of what civilization or culture you are from, I’m not one of those professors paid to coddle you with comforting falsehoods, or pretense of respect, in exchange for preserving the income stream for the university, or my job. I know my job. My job is jurisprudence. I’m a prosecutor.

  • Correctly Apportions Responsibility for The Failure of The West

    Correctly Apportions Responsibility for The Failure of The West https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/correctly-apportions-responsibility-for-the-failure-of-the-west/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 15:25:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265665458868555784

  • Correctly Apportions Responsibility for The Failure of The West

    Oct 30, 2019, 11:23 AM LISA OUTHWAITE CORRECTLY APPORTIONS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FAILURE OF THE WEST —“Curt Doolittle, You personally do not. There is nothing MGTOW about you.

    <q>”…women are how the marxist, postmodernists, and feminists, brought their repetition of the destruction of civilization into ours.”</q>

    This point, and the general spirit of the original post fell short in terms of fairly apportioning responsibility and, therefore, will have fallen short in terms of re-building legitimate male strength, which must be founded on a more serious appraisal of past mistakes and a full acknowledgement of the burden of blame. The:

    <q>”women have destroyed Western civilisation'</q>

    … argument has become almost a rallying call to less discerning, disenfranchised males and it’s in dire need of correction, or balance certainly, by more superintendent males.”— Lisa Outhwaite Correct.

  • Correctly Apportions Responsibility for The Failure of The West

    Oct 30, 2019, 11:23 AM LISA OUTHWAITE CORRECTLY APPORTIONS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FAILURE OF THE WEST —“Curt Doolittle, You personally do not. There is nothing MGTOW about you.

    <q>”…women are how the marxist, postmodernists, and feminists, brought their repetition of the destruction of civilization into ours.”</q>

    This point, and the general spirit of the original post fell short in terms of fairly apportioning responsibility and, therefore, will have fallen short in terms of re-building legitimate male strength, which must be founded on a more serious appraisal of past mistakes and a full acknowledgement of the burden of blame. The:

    <q>”women have destroyed Western civilisation'</q>

    … argument has become almost a rallying call to less discerning, disenfranchised males and it’s in dire need of correction, or balance certainly, by more superintendent males.”— Lisa Outhwaite Correct.