September 12th, 2018 10:50 AM
—“The middle class didn’t care when it was the underclass being culled. But our elites have conspired with a hostile outgroup to profit in the destruction of the middle also. Individualism in markets, but collectivism in government to impose the ban on free riding, fraud, and moral hazard to restore the relative profitability of the benevolent elite again compared to the industries of genocidal traitors.”—Joseph Smith
September 12th, 2018 10:48 AM
—“There are too many examples of how the short-sighted, or medium-sighted, values of our commercial elite conflict with the long-term values of the genetic and cultural group. This isnât a new phenomenon but its effects have been amplified since the industrial revolution and our defenses have not kept pace with or adequately utilized the technological advances of the day. The influence of the commercial sector is vast and restraints on it are ineffective. An additional problem is that since the death of god and the disintegration of our religious institutions, we perceive profit in wholly materialistic terms. I think your emphasis on an expanded appreciation of property may be an antidote to this aspect of the problem.”— Tim Spillane
Commercialism (Unregulated Capitalism) = Universalism at the expense of the people who make such commerce possible.
September 12th, 2018 10:50 AM
—“The middle class didn’t care when it was the underclass being culled. But our elites have conspired with a hostile outgroup to profit in the destruction of the middle also. Individualism in markets, but collectivism in government to impose the ban on free riding, fraud, and moral hazard to restore the relative profitability of the benevolent elite again compared to the industries of genocidal traitors.”—Joseph Smith
September 12th, 2018 10:48 AM
—“There are too many examples of how the short-sighted, or medium-sighted, values of our commercial elite conflict with the long-term values of the genetic and cultural group. This isnât a new phenomenon but its effects have been amplified since the industrial revolution and our defenses have not kept pace with or adequately utilized the technological advances of the day. The influence of the commercial sector is vast and restraints on it are ineffective. An additional problem is that since the death of god and the disintegration of our religious institutions, we perceive profit in wholly materialistic terms. I think your emphasis on an expanded appreciation of property may be an antidote to this aspect of the problem.”— Tim Spillane
Commercialism (Unregulated Capitalism) = Universalism at the expense of the people who make such commerce possible.
THE INCONCEIVABILITY OF OUR DIFFERENCES
It is inconceivable to a conservative or libertarian how much time a liberal spends thinking about equality – the same as a female spends thinking… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=292137904716440&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-09 14:47:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1038801168036716544
Hierarchy (A Pack) requires only that you seek your position. There is no fear of exclusion, only change in position. Equality (A Herd) has no position so one is either in and conforming our… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=292136394716591&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-09 14:43:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1038800099596484610
(We knew this but the mainstream didn’t.) He declared that ‘national socialism was based on Marx’ Socialists have always disowned him. But a new book insists that he was, at heart, a left-winger —“It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources. His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone’s disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan “Crusade against Marxism” as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly. “His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” he once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit”. He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that “they had never even read Marx”, implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been “a private Russian affair”, whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun”, adding revealingly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx. “That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race – implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative. Without race, he went on, National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground”. Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him. “Yet privately, and perhaps even publicly, he conceded that National Socialism was based on Marx. On reflection, it makes consistent sense. The basis of a dogma is not the dogma, much as the foundation of a building is not the building, and in numerous ways National Socialism was based on Marxism. It was a theory of history and not, like liberalism or social democracy, a mere agenda of legislative proposals. And it was a theory of human, not just of German, history, a heady vision that claimed to understand the whole past and future of mankind. Hitler’s discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in “the community of the volk”, not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to “convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists”, meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes. “That realisation was crucial. To dispossess, after all, as the Russian civil war had recently shown, could only mean Germans fighting Germans, and Hitler believed there was a quicker and more efficient route. There could be socialism without civil war.”—
(We knew this but the mainstream didn’t.) He declared that ‘national socialism was based on Marx’ Socialists have always disowned him. But a new book insists that he was, at heart, a left-winger —“It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources. His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone’s disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan “Crusade against Marxism” as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly. “His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” he once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit”. He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that “they had never even read Marx”, implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been “a private Russian affair”, whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun”, adding revealingly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx. “That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race – implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative. Without race, he went on, National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground”. Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him. “Yet privately, and perhaps even publicly, he conceded that National Socialism was based on Marx. On reflection, it makes consistent sense. The basis of a dogma is not the dogma, much as the foundation of a building is not the building, and in numerous ways National Socialism was based on Marxism. It was a theory of history and not, like liberalism or social democracy, a mere agenda of legislative proposals. And it was a theory of human, not just of German, history, a heady vision that claimed to understand the whole past and future of mankind. Hitler’s discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in “the community of the volk”, not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to “convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists”, meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes. “That realisation was crucial. To dispossess, after all, as the Russian civil war had recently shown, could only mean Germans fighting Germans, and Hitler believed there was a quicker and more efficient route. There could be socialism without civil war.”—
Black males are (extremely) disproportionately responsible for crime, which corresponds to black disproportionality of the lower IQ curve, and the black disproportionality of the faster rate of maturity curve, and black disproportionality of the testosterone curve, and black dominance of the reverse-neoteny curve. Blacks have shorter gestation periods. Blacks have lower metabolisms useful in heat, but lower industriousness as a consequence, when this factor alone will produce as great a difference in income potential as intelligence. Stereotypes are not only a necessity of temporal and cognitive efficiency, but they are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences because they must survive daily falsification (survival from competition). Because blacks mature earlier, and are more socially dependent for judgement and experience teen status pressure earlier and more deeply, they are disproportionately affected by awareness of lower social, sexual, economic, and political market value – when in proximity to other groups (Diversity is a ‘bad’). Despite the fact that (affect of deeper maturity) have higher self confidence at conflict with signal feedback. Worse, black males are disproportionately from single mother homes. And single mothers produce the majority of children with problems, particularly with children that mature early. So it is somewhat ‘torturous’ to mix black, muslim, and Hispanic with white, asian, and jewish populations, which creates conflict when what each group needs is homogeneity so that they can develop norms, laws, and institutions that suit their rates and depths of maturity and their vastly different class distributions. The worst crime whites have done was not slavery, which was endemic, it was to copy the soviets and force integration and deprive blacks of their emerging norms and institutions, but also their emerging middle, professional, and upper classes, who ‘defected’ due to the cost of carrying the vast black underclass and laboring class, that cannot compete outside of it’s own demographic. Africans evolved to survive heat, disease gradient, parasite gradient, many predators, many many human competitors. They have superior physical traits from bones, to sprinting to hearing, to skin. This is because neoteny is dangerous in their ancestral environment wich rewards rapid and deep maturity, and they were not able due to distance from trade routes, able to institute an agrarian empire sufficiently concentrated per square mile to cause upward reproduction of the upper classes due to continuous starvation of the underclasses. The lower latitudes produce greater ability to expand the upper classes (higher neoteny), and the higher latitudes produce greater abiity to sustain the lower classes (Less neoteny). Ethnocentrism is always superior for the simple reason that we can produce norms and institutions that suit our group’s distributions without competing for norms and institutions with others that require different norms and institutions. We use the examples of ashkenazim and sub saharan african as extremes at both ends of the spectrum. But the spectrum of success at shrinking the population below the minimum necessary for self training (105) is available to every group. The question is whether the elites in any group can force this reproductive change. Because by and large that seems very difficult with the development of rifles, that produced military equality offset only by numbers, and prohibited a professional military caste from domesticating the population through agrarian production.
Black males are (extremely) disproportionately responsible for crime, which corresponds to black disproportionality of the lower IQ curve, and the black disproportionality of the faster rate of maturity curve, and black disproportionality of the testosterone curve, and black dominance of the reverse-neoteny curve. Blacks have shorter gestation periods. Blacks have lower metabolisms useful in heat, but lower industriousness as a consequence, when this factor alone will produce as great a difference in income potential as intelligence. Stereotypes are not only a necessity of temporal and cognitive efficiency, but they are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences because they must survive daily falsification (survival from competition). Because blacks mature earlier, and are more socially dependent for judgement and experience teen status pressure earlier and more deeply, they are disproportionately affected by awareness of lower social, sexual, economic, and political market value – when in proximity to other groups (Diversity is a ‘bad’). Despite the fact that (affect of deeper maturity) have higher self confidence at conflict with signal feedback. Worse, black males are disproportionately from single mother homes. And single mothers produce the majority of children with problems, particularly with children that mature early. So it is somewhat ‘torturous’ to mix black, muslim, and Hispanic with white, asian, and jewish populations, which creates conflict when what each group needs is homogeneity so that they can develop norms, laws, and institutions that suit their rates and depths of maturity and their vastly different class distributions. The worst crime whites have done was not slavery, which was endemic, it was to copy the soviets and force integration and deprive blacks of their emerging norms and institutions, but also their emerging middle, professional, and upper classes, who ‘defected’ due to the cost of carrying the vast black underclass and laboring class, that cannot compete outside of it’s own demographic. Africans evolved to survive heat, disease gradient, parasite gradient, many predators, many many human competitors. They have superior physical traits from bones, to sprinting to hearing, to skin. This is because neoteny is dangerous in their ancestral environment wich rewards rapid and deep maturity, and they were not able due to distance from trade routes, able to institute an agrarian empire sufficiently concentrated per square mile to cause upward reproduction of the upper classes due to continuous starvation of the underclasses. The lower latitudes produce greater ability to expand the upper classes (higher neoteny), and the higher latitudes produce greater abiity to sustain the lower classes (Less neoteny). Ethnocentrism is always superior for the simple reason that we can produce norms and institutions that suit our group’s distributions without competing for norms and institutions with others that require different norms and institutions. We use the examples of ashkenazim and sub saharan african as extremes at both ends of the spectrum. But the spectrum of success at shrinking the population below the minimum necessary for self training (105) is available to every group. The question is whether the elites in any group can force this reproductive change. Because by and large that seems very difficult with the development of rifles, that produced military equality offset only by numbers, and prohibited a professional military caste from domesticating the population through agrarian production.