—“Under the machinations of Keynesian economists, Americans have been turned into a nation of share croppers living with the illusion that they are getting ahead with economic “freedom” just around the corner; as they fall deeper and deeper into debt with each planting and harvest no matter how bountiful.”— James Santagata
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 04:39:00 UTC
TEN RANDOM ISSUES WITH MULTICULTURALISM
(I posted this as a comment on ex-army)
1) it provides cheap unearned status signals for a lot of people who would otherwise be daily confronted by their low status. (disinformation but I suppose ok)
2) It provides the female reproductive strategy with intuitionistic allies against alphas. (women may like it because it increases the herd but it’s a bad thing)
3) It provides numbers to the peasants who would steal and the priests (state) that encourages them. (very bad under democracy)
4) It drives up housing prices and demand for credit and consumption (this is the only material benefit) that would otherwise not exist. (economists think its good, taxmen think its good, otherwise it’s disastrously inflationary and distorts out entire information system)
5) It misdirects effort and capital into consumption rather than to increases in productivity (which in the long term is a bad thing)
6) It consumes accumulated normative capital. (very bad)
7) If from the lower classes it decreases genetic (human) capital, and in some cases (France) reverses the all benefits of teaching science and literacy.
8) It creates competition for privilege in government. (very bad)
9) it increase conflict and therefore demand for government. (very bad)
10) A lot of people like being directed by government and having someone else to do the policing, rather than doing it themselves. (to each his own but not at others cost)
I could continue this list, easily to 100 items. But you get the point.
We spent thousands of years culling our herd through various means of genetic pacification And in order to pay people to retire early and support single mothers we have burned millennia of eugenic investment that made our high trust civilization possible.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 03:08:00 UTC
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/OPEN LETTER TO “SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN THE 21ST CENTURY”
( http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/ )
(posted on site in comments section given no link to messaging)
===
Wondering if you’d be willing to do a chat.
We both started working on similar problems at about the same time. And have come to similar conclusions although not identical through different methods.
I know that the difference in our work comes down to the difference between aggregates and consumption under the assumption of common good on your end, and truthfulness, morality, and rational cooperation under the assumption of not doing ‘bad’ on mine.
And perhaps nothing more than the difference between dysgenic and eugenic reproduction as the translation of the criteria we both call that “assumption” of common good or ‘doing bad’.
With that understanding (if we can achieve it) I feel you are better informed than I am on the consequences of MMT and inflation on prices, credit, debt and possibly information.
Now I am not an MMT supporter but it is the only referrer I know that has enough meaning to provide a starting point.
And while I agree that the K/NK movements describe cause and consequence. I do not think it constitutes a full accounting of consequence, and as such is insufficient. Nor do I find agreement with discretionary action rather than rule of law in matters of influencing the economy by policy means. Any more than I find agreement with discretion in rule of law in the practice of law, or policy.
The problem we (both) face in this subject matter is that there are very few people with broad enough knowledge of the various movements to converse with. Particularly the relatively serious failure of the 20th century thinkers to solve the problem of social science (the Wilsonian Synthesis) and its consequence.
It would help me a great deal if we could talk through this set of ideas. I would be hopeful it would be equally helpful to you as well.
Thanks
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 06:54:00 UTC
[I]t’s turning into a weekly effort but it’s time once again to reiterate my position on biases. I don’t do racism. I definitely do classism and eugenics – but not racism. I definitely do truth and and morality and therefore culturism. People, cultures and civilizations are objectively superior and inferior to one another. Degrees of Truth, Commons, Suppression of Parasitism, and Genetic Pacification determine superiority. I put my people first. Just as I put myself and my family first. I want to defend my kin and our civilization. I want to resist the lesser people’s doing damage to us. But it is my ambition to raise all people into transcendence. And the Christian soul has no room for hate and idleness where it can be replaced by paternalism and hard work. We are aristocracy. We are man’s aristocracy the virtue of the greatest suppression of parasitism, the greatest truth, the greatest commons. If man is to Transcend, then we must raise mankind into transcendence. To do raise mankind into transcendence we must look at the evidence, and have the courage to rule.
[I]t’s turning into a weekly effort but it’s time once again to reiterate my position on biases. I don’t do racism. I definitely do classism and eugenics – but not racism. I definitely do truth and and morality and therefore culturism. People, cultures and civilizations are objectively superior and inferior to one another. Degrees of Truth, Commons, Suppression of Parasitism, and Genetic Pacification determine superiority. I put my people first. Just as I put myself and my family first. I want to defend my kin and our civilization. I want to resist the lesser people’s doing damage to us. But it is my ambition to raise all people into transcendence. And the Christian soul has no room for hate and idleness where it can be replaced by paternalism and hard work. We are aristocracy. We are man’s aristocracy the virtue of the greatest suppression of parasitism, the greatest truth, the greatest commons. If man is to Transcend, then we must raise mankind into transcendence. To do raise mankind into transcendence we must look at the evidence, and have the courage to rule.
[T]he Author’s criticisms stand (mostly), if we restate them as “increases in productivity and decreases in prices are beneficial only so long as the externalities are not more costly than the price discounting”. I think all of us are now aware that the big box reseller movement was as disastrous as he suggests. I think that it’s become obvious that free trade can be performed just as disastrously by the same criteria. I think it’s become obvious that the perverse incentive of immigrating labor at the expense of the populace has political effects for either party, and for the Deep State’s corrupt self interest, but negative effects for the population and their offspring. I think it’s obvious now that democracy a convenient tool for useful idiots used to place labor(organizer of goods and services), manager(organizer of production), entrepreneur (organizer of production), and lender (organizer of production) into conflict for the benefit of the state bureaucracy and the large financiers. I think it is obvious that the financial sector is privatizing nearly all gains of the world commons because we use that financial sector to distribute fiat currency (divisible shares of stock in the commons used as a money substitute) instead of directly distributing liquidity to consumers (and creating a political hazard under Democracy). And I think it’s become obvious that the mistakes of the 20th century were made with good intentions by those outside of the marxist/socialist/syndicalist/frankfurt-school/postmodern schools (the quantitative economists), but that most of these errors were errors of pseudoscience and ignorance in an era of great change. Now, the cause of this monstrous behavior is not only the economics profession, and it’s convenient use of measuring what’s visible and not whats invisible to justify its own existence. But also the stock market and the fiat money system that make such inter-temporally risky (and unmeasurable) allocations of capital possible, and then privatize that speculation (as did Mitt Romney – albeit not knowing that he was immoral. BTW: I was one of the owners of those prior downtown businesses affected by Staples). Just as importantly, perhaps the most important cause in the 20th century, was the use of the Union movement to artificially increase prices, that renders businesses price-uncompetitive and drove our businesses offshore, and created a war between labor and entrepreneur rather than the ancient partnership between savers, craftsmen and entrepreneurs. Improved goods matter to us. It’s not moral to charge import duties on superior goods at superior or inferior prices. But I have no idea why it is NOT moral to charge import duties in wage differences in a world where there are no longer comparative advantages other than wages. This concept is important, because like all theories, the theory of competitive advantage has limits. Hence why in Propertarianism I require that truth propositions include limits and morality, rather than ‘assume’ that all measurable gains are without worse negative externalities. It is drastically cheaper to pull oil out of Saudi Sands and get it to the sea, than it is to pull it out of Russian Tundra and ship it across thousands of miles of pipeline, or extract it from Canadian oil sands and get it to a port. These are matters of comparative advantage whose price differences produce no externalities. The fact that canadian wages, russian wages, and saudi wages differ so greatly is not a factor of production open to comparative advantage. It is price arbitrage at the cost of human suffering. (I am sure I will get hammered for this but according to propertarianism it is an objectively moral statement). It is likewise just as distorting of the information system not to account for intertemporal shifts in credit cost by state subsidized loans and wages – although I cannot see that this is immoral, only that trade wars can be immorally constructed by doing so. It’s not more efficient if we produce negative externalities in excess of gains. It’s only efficient if people are freed up for more productive work (farm labor for factories, factory labor for white collar work), but not if people are made unemployable (I hate automated cash registers and parking lot attendants and movie theatre service and anything else of that nature frankly. Minimum wage is a bad idea but human replacement because of external costs created by the state that make employment undesirable are far worse.
[callout]“Thou Shalt Do No Harm In The Pursuit of Self Interest” is quite different from “Thou Shalt Do The Most for Others Out Of High Mindedness”.[/callout]
CONVERSELY THE IMMORALITY OF THE LABOR AND UNDERCLASSES [C]onversely, people demonstrate that they will prefer price over quality help, service and employment. Which is why I am so much against immigration of labor that makes such things possible. So we give rise to black markets, because while people claim to be moral and want justice they do so only when it affects others not themselves. So people demonstrate moral selection bias. If we fix the financial and legal system will that help us in fixing the immorality of individuals who seek to create black markets in oder to circumvent the higher costs of immorally discounted goods? It is not just the big boys in power that are immoral. Every asian shop-keeper without a credit card terminal is a tax evader, and a thief. And there are thousands of such cases every day everywhere. Immorality is difficult to suppress in all walks of life. And there is pretty good evidence that it’s harder to suppress it among the little people than the middle and upper middle class. And moreover, it is one thing to say that we may not profit by privatizing the commons and act immorally, and another to say that we must share our profits in creating commons (increases in productivity and decreases in prices) with others who already gained from the compound effects of increases in productivity and decreases in prices. Capitalism after all refers to ‘consumer capitalism’ which has benefitted consumers and the state far more than entrepreneurs. “Thou Shalt Do No Harm In The Pursuit of Self Interest” is quite different from “Thou Shalt Do The Most for Others Out Of High Mindedness”. The moral requirement that the preservation of cooperation requires that we limit our actions to those involving productive, fully-informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of imposition of costs upon that which was obtained by others by the same means – meaning free of negative externalities – does not require that we also redistribute the gains from taking the risk of doing so. The moral requirement that we insure others against the vicissitudes of nature despite their good efforts says nothing about those insufficiently productive in value to others that they can expand their moral hazard – doing harm to others – by reproduction of offspring and placing the burden on others. Or that taxation that transfers rates of reproduction from those productive in the service of others to those unproductive in the services of others – which imposes a cost on the producer and upon the commons. So the immorality of our current state of affairs cuts both ways. Each class preys upon the other using government as the method and obscurantism and fog of political accounting as the means of escaping both criticism and self awareness of our immorality. Each class imposes costs upon the other until we all decide that the incentives are insufficient to play the game and descend into civil war – which is certainly a possibility on the near horizon. THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE [T]hese various externalities that allow immoral abuses of capitalism are measurable. But so called ‘economic science’ does not (often) practice full accounting or morality. I practices Selective Accounting to Justify Immorality that creates opportunity for the financial class to privatize commons of all forms. It is this pseudoscience created by marx and keynes and justified by Rawls on the left, rand and rothbard in the libertarian movement, that accomplished this horror – and did so over the objections of the white conservatives who simply lacked the science and understanding other than tradition to stop it. Yet somehow capitalism is to blame despite its use in dragging humanity out of disease, poverty, ignorance and mysticism. And despite the revelry the underclasses have demonstrated by their unregulated dysgenic reproduction and overpopulation of the planet and its carrying capacity. I cannot see less developed societies refraining from ‘cheating’ by conduct of immoral trade any more than I can see them abandoning levels of corruption endemic to all cultures outside of christendom. So it is one thing for a MORAL PEOPLE (us) to INCREASE our use of morality and decrease our use of immorality within our borders and quite another thing to expect OTHERS to discontinue immoral behavior in the borders and across their borders via trade. THIS IS WHY PROPERTARIANISM IS TAKING ME SO LONG [T]his is why, in my work on Propertarianism, I demand tests of ‘full accounting’ as a scientific warranty of due diligence in any promise of truthful speech about matters of the commons. By full accounting I mean across all capital forms across all time periods affected. (note that we idd not have the economic and financial knowledge to do this prior to the era of computers in which immoral economics – marxist and keyensian economics – were constructed. I tell everyone that it’s the Economics. I need to make sure that I understand the implications of Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth in an attempt to cleans economics of pseudoscience and immorality. One of my ambitions is to correct the pseudoscience of economics by restoring objective MORALITY to economic science. But this is a huge problem and I have to work through these issues carefully and at some painful level of detail. This particular argument I think survives for eternity. And I think that we solve the problems of capitalism with it. Problems that are not problems of capitalism per say: they are problems with pseudoscientific Keynesian economics of obscurantist aggregates and the Rothchildian use of financialism as state authorized parasitism specifically created to circumvent the morality of western ethics. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
[T]he Author’s criticisms stand (mostly), if we restate them as “increases in productivity and decreases in prices are beneficial only so long as the externalities are not more costly than the price discounting”. I think all of us are now aware that the big box reseller movement was as disastrous as he suggests. I think that it’s become obvious that free trade can be performed just as disastrously by the same criteria. I think it’s become obvious that the perverse incentive of immigrating labor at the expense of the populace has political effects for either party, and for the Deep State’s corrupt self interest, but negative effects for the population and their offspring. I think it’s obvious now that democracy a convenient tool for useful idiots used to place labor(organizer of goods and services), manager(organizer of production), entrepreneur (organizer of production), and lender (organizer of production) into conflict for the benefit of the state bureaucracy and the large financiers. I think it is obvious that the financial sector is privatizing nearly all gains of the world commons because we use that financial sector to distribute fiat currency (divisible shares of stock in the commons used as a money substitute) instead of directly distributing liquidity to consumers (and creating a political hazard under Democracy). And I think it’s become obvious that the mistakes of the 20th century were made with good intentions by those outside of the marxist/socialist/syndicalist/frankfurt-school/postmodern schools (the quantitative economists), but that most of these errors were errors of pseudoscience and ignorance in an era of great change. Now, the cause of this monstrous behavior is not only the economics profession, and it’s convenient use of measuring what’s visible and not whats invisible to justify its own existence. But also the stock market and the fiat money system that make such inter-temporally risky (and unmeasurable) allocations of capital possible, and then privatize that speculation (as did Mitt Romney – albeit not knowing that he was immoral. BTW: I was one of the owners of those prior downtown businesses affected by Staples). Just as importantly, perhaps the most important cause in the 20th century, was the use of the Union movement to artificially increase prices, that renders businesses price-uncompetitive and drove our businesses offshore, and created a war between labor and entrepreneur rather than the ancient partnership between savers, craftsmen and entrepreneurs. Improved goods matter to us. It’s not moral to charge import duties on superior goods at superior or inferior prices. But I have no idea why it is NOT moral to charge import duties in wage differences in a world where there are no longer comparative advantages other than wages. This concept is important, because like all theories, the theory of competitive advantage has limits. Hence why in Propertarianism I require that truth propositions include limits and morality, rather than ‘assume’ that all measurable gains are without worse negative externalities. It is drastically cheaper to pull oil out of Saudi Sands and get it to the sea, than it is to pull it out of Russian Tundra and ship it across thousands of miles of pipeline, or extract it from Canadian oil sands and get it to a port. These are matters of comparative advantage whose price differences produce no externalities. The fact that canadian wages, russian wages, and saudi wages differ so greatly is not a factor of production open to comparative advantage. It is price arbitrage at the cost of human suffering. (I am sure I will get hammered for this but according to propertarianism it is an objectively moral statement). It is likewise just as distorting of the information system not to account for intertemporal shifts in credit cost by state subsidized loans and wages – although I cannot see that this is immoral, only that trade wars can be immorally constructed by doing so. It’s not more efficient if we produce negative externalities in excess of gains. It’s only efficient if people are freed up for more productive work (farm labor for factories, factory labor for white collar work), but not if people are made unemployable (I hate automated cash registers and parking lot attendants and movie theatre service and anything else of that nature frankly. Minimum wage is a bad idea but human replacement because of external costs created by the state that make employment undesirable are far worse.
[callout]“Thou Shalt Do No Harm In The Pursuit of Self Interest” is quite different from “Thou Shalt Do The Most for Others Out Of High Mindedness”.[/callout]
CONVERSELY THE IMMORALITY OF THE LABOR AND UNDERCLASSES [C]onversely, people demonstrate that they will prefer price over quality help, service and employment. Which is why I am so much against immigration of labor that makes such things possible. So we give rise to black markets, because while people claim to be moral and want justice they do so only when it affects others not themselves. So people demonstrate moral selection bias. If we fix the financial and legal system will that help us in fixing the immorality of individuals who seek to create black markets in oder to circumvent the higher costs of immorally discounted goods? It is not just the big boys in power that are immoral. Every asian shop-keeper without a credit card terminal is a tax evader, and a thief. And there are thousands of such cases every day everywhere. Immorality is difficult to suppress in all walks of life. And there is pretty good evidence that it’s harder to suppress it among the little people than the middle and upper middle class. And moreover, it is one thing to say that we may not profit by privatizing the commons and act immorally, and another to say that we must share our profits in creating commons (increases in productivity and decreases in prices) with others who already gained from the compound effects of increases in productivity and decreases in prices. Capitalism after all refers to ‘consumer capitalism’ which has benefitted consumers and the state far more than entrepreneurs. “Thou Shalt Do No Harm In The Pursuit of Self Interest” is quite different from “Thou Shalt Do The Most for Others Out Of High Mindedness”. The moral requirement that the preservation of cooperation requires that we limit our actions to those involving productive, fully-informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of imposition of costs upon that which was obtained by others by the same means – meaning free of negative externalities – does not require that we also redistribute the gains from taking the risk of doing so. The moral requirement that we insure others against the vicissitudes of nature despite their good efforts says nothing about those insufficiently productive in value to others that they can expand their moral hazard – doing harm to others – by reproduction of offspring and placing the burden on others. Or that taxation that transfers rates of reproduction from those productive in the service of others to those unproductive in the services of others – which imposes a cost on the producer and upon the commons. So the immorality of our current state of affairs cuts both ways. Each class preys upon the other using government as the method and obscurantism and fog of political accounting as the means of escaping both criticism and self awareness of our immorality. Each class imposes costs upon the other until we all decide that the incentives are insufficient to play the game and descend into civil war – which is certainly a possibility on the near horizon. THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE [T]hese various externalities that allow immoral abuses of capitalism are measurable. But so called ‘economic science’ does not (often) practice full accounting or morality. I practices Selective Accounting to Justify Immorality that creates opportunity for the financial class to privatize commons of all forms. It is this pseudoscience created by marx and keynes and justified by Rawls on the left, rand and rothbard in the libertarian movement, that accomplished this horror – and did so over the objections of the white conservatives who simply lacked the science and understanding other than tradition to stop it. Yet somehow capitalism is to blame despite its use in dragging humanity out of disease, poverty, ignorance and mysticism. And despite the revelry the underclasses have demonstrated by their unregulated dysgenic reproduction and overpopulation of the planet and its carrying capacity. I cannot see less developed societies refraining from ‘cheating’ by conduct of immoral trade any more than I can see them abandoning levels of corruption endemic to all cultures outside of christendom. So it is one thing for a MORAL PEOPLE (us) to INCREASE our use of morality and decrease our use of immorality within our borders and quite another thing to expect OTHERS to discontinue immoral behavior in the borders and across their borders via trade. THIS IS WHY PROPERTARIANISM IS TAKING ME SO LONG [T]his is why, in my work on Propertarianism, I demand tests of ‘full accounting’ as a scientific warranty of due diligence in any promise of truthful speech about matters of the commons. By full accounting I mean across all capital forms across all time periods affected. (note that we idd not have the economic and financial knowledge to do this prior to the era of computers in which immoral economics – marxist and keyensian economics – were constructed. I tell everyone that it’s the Economics. I need to make sure that I understand the implications of Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth in an attempt to cleans economics of pseudoscience and immorality. One of my ambitions is to correct the pseudoscience of economics by restoring objective MORALITY to economic science. But this is a huge problem and I have to work through these issues carefully and at some painful level of detail. This particular argument I think survives for eternity. And I think that we solve the problems of capitalism with it. Problems that are not problems of capitalism per say: they are problems with pseudoscientific Keynesian economics of obscurantist aggregates and the Rothchildian use of financialism as state authorized parasitism specifically created to circumvent the morality of western ethics. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
What Love About Ashkenazi Genetics – But What Does It Mean?
It’s pretty simple: verbal acuity persists into the lower classes, whereas verbal acuity in my people seems to decline quickly in the lower classes. The ability to observe mental projection and narrate it at the same time is just so common in that gene pool. And it seems to persist through substantial outbreeding.
Its just so much EASIER to talk to someone in ANY class if they have the ashkenazi gift of language. They have much higher verbal comprehension and much higher empathic comprehension than their white peers. And as the depth of cooperation increases (the size of the economy) this talent increases in value. (even if the talent for deceit increases as well). Outlier genetics produce outliers in all directions remember.
It’s very different from the East Asians. They lie and cheat like — like always — but they are terrible at it. And they have no ability to use verbalism to rally and lead. So aside from the fact that they’re more racist than we can imagine (that’s a good thing), they are not disruptive or difficult to organize with. You do not want an asian lawyer, and I would be very nervous about an asian accountant, but an asian engineer or employee is almost always a good thing – especially for those of us who like to heap praise on good performers, because they’re so damned appreciative of it. Our heritage as egalitarian warriors does not facilitate our complimenting subordinates all the time. (I love working with the Japanese and the Russians. )
Here in Ukraine, and especially here in L’viv, which was at one point very close to the capital of Ashkenazi civilization, (as a border protectorate under the governance of greater powers – or a ghetto at greater scale with a better economy because of it, or a crusoe’s island) we have a LOT of people with minority jewish heritage (just as Afghanistan does by the way). And you notice it here as much as I notice it in america. If you can get a catholic with minority Ashkenazi genes that convey that verbal ability it seems to produce pretty interesting results. So as I’ve said for a long time now, the jews have been ‘capturing’ superior genes for a long time the same way we have been creating them through constant hard work.
Lack of jewish artistic creativity is equally obvious for reasons I understand both culturally (art is a moral commons) and genetics (visualization). But not just here – everywhere. And a lot has been written about it both by westerners and jews. And we still see it in the dominance of (immorally biased) jewish script writers and financiers, and (morally biased) christian designers, actors, and directors. And the dominance of jews in pornography, comedy, and pulp, and the dominance of christians in the moral (horror/scifi) and high arts. And perhaps it is an unfair comparison given western excellence at physical creativity. Just as it is unfair to compare other cultures to jewish verbalism. But genes express themselves in culture and in our commons. Jews are overrepresented in every criminal field perpetuated by verbal means, and every deceit field (academia, media and press) just as they are overrepresented in a few non-criminal fields (hard science). Why is it that the jewish people are so excited by scamming and free-riding and that whites are so excited by production? (Thats just data. Don’t kid yourself. i work with data. If you haven’t got a LOT of data, then you don’t know what you’re talking about.)
And this ability – the ability to introspectively narrate experiences versus introspectively construct visualizations is what provides the interesting utility of our cultures (races) to one another.
So I’m stuck on this issue of mutual accommodation. I know that it is possible to eradicate jewish cultural immoralism through the application of incremental suppression by outlawing untrue, unwarranted, immoral (parasitic) speech in matters of the commons. I know that it is possible to outlaw the Talmud and the Koran (and possibly the bible) if they propose competition to law, versus competition to spirit. Both the Talmud and the Koran are objectively immoral books, with objectively immoral laws. And as books of law they are not as is christianity, a book of wisdom but a book of commands. And as such are not religions but competing political systems. The west was reliant upon natural law before the church gave it a name. It is the law of our indo european ancestors.
I suspect that a verbally articulate ashkenazi underclass over represents itself dramatically because the competition in that underclass is non-existent from the host. They are natural leaders of the underclasses by the simple virtue of putting sentences together. The west has eradicated those people from our own polity if they ever existed. This leadership ability creates a long term problem for the western ethic that unconsciously tests verbal ability for ‘rank’. Where we must convert to judging moral action and conformity as rank insulated from eugenic suppression.
To do that we must know objectively what immoral and moral, true and false statements are, so that we can prosecute immoral and false statements such that a culture predisposed through indoctrination, culture and genetics, to verbal criminality (specialization in parasitism and free riding by various acts of fraud and entrapment) finds the incremental suppression of their ability more costly to contend with than to engage in productive and moral activity despite their ‘feminine’ group reproductive strategy.
So I am fairly sure that the demand for truthful and moral speech in matters of the commons is sufficient to eliminate the abuse of verbal ability just as westerners have limited our excellence at martial ability (we’re heroic, we don’t run, and most importantly we hold formation and act as one – and there is some sort of awareness of where we are in space that allows us to act in concert more readily).
I don’t know however how frustrated that population would become if they had to find alternative means of income, or if like women whose strategy the Ashkenazi have exaggerated to perfection, whether they cannot help it and will represent a constant problem to our civilization.
Our great experiments at the underclasses, catholics, jews and women, and now third world underclasses, has been a failure. We assumed that western man’s truthfulness (science) and natural law was a universal if given voice. This is not true.
Mankind evolved fastest wherever the incremental suppression of free riding was most active. Man PACIFIES the universe, including himself.
We pacified women first, then our underclasses, then competing civilizations.
When we stopped pacifying we lost.
Back to pacification.
Back to paternalism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 04:43:00 UTC
Progressives cannot tell the difference between wishful thinking and deceit. And when they came they prefer deceit.
Lying is necessary to frame kleptocracy as virtuous, theft as moral and dysgenia as good.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 02:39:00 UTC
It’s turning into a weekly thing but it’s time once again to reiterate my position on biases.
I don’t do racism. I definitely do classism and eugenics – but not racism.
I definitely do truth and and morality and therefore culturism.
I put my people first. Just as I put myself and my family first.
I want to defend my kin and our civilization.
I want to resist the lesser people’s doing damage to us.
But it is my ambition to raise all people into transcendence.
And the Christian soul has no room for hate and idleness where it can be replaced by paternalism and hard work.
We are aristocracy.
We must raise mankind into transcendence.
To do raise mankind into transcendence we must look at the evidence, and have the courage to rule.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-05 14:02:00 UTC