Theme: Coercion

  • The only thing stopping ‘us’ from punishing ‘you’ is those ‘Troops’. Because we

    The only thing stopping ‘us’ from punishing ‘you’ is those ‘Troops’. Because we can’t wait until the civil war turns hot after the election. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-07-27 20:27:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287847222055444485

    Reply addressees: @bdholtzman @tgbrooks

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287833655885299717

  • The only thing stopping ‘us’ from punishing ‘you’ is those ‘Troops’. Because we

    The only thing stopping ‘us’ from punishing ‘you’ is those ‘Troops’. Because we can’t wait until the civil war turns hot after the election. 😉

    Reply addressees: @bdholtzman @tgbrooks

  • I didn’t realize that when people gear up, wear masks, helmets, shields, bring r

    I didn’t realize that when people gear up, wear masks, helmets, shields, bring rocks and explosives to throw at police, stop traffic and trash vehicles, beat white people, shoot weapons, set buildings on fire, tear down public artworks,and loot businesses its “Freedom of Speech.”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-07-27 20:27:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287847002022322176

    Reply addressees: @bdholtzman @tgbrooks

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287833655885299717

  • I didn’t realize that when people gear up, wear masks, helmets, shields, bring r

    I didn’t realize that when people gear up, wear masks, helmets, shields, bring rocks and explosives to throw at police, stop traffic and trash vehicles, beat white people, shoot weapons, set buildings on fire, tear down public artworks,and loot businesses its “Freedom of Speech.”

    Reply addressees: @bdholtzman @tgbrooks

  • Libertarianism – Common Property Version of Private Property Marxism

    —“The problem with libertarianism is that libertarians don’t agree on what libertarianism means. Some libertarians say that if you truly believe in the non-aggression principle then you must be an anarchist. Other libertarians say that anarchists are not libertarians. Wanting to abolish the state vs. minimize it is a big Some libertarians say that being a libertarian is about minding your own business and not judging other people’s lifestyles. Other libertarians say that libertarianism is solely about the role of the state. Which one is it?”— Julie Borowski

    “Non Aggression Principle” is an incomplete sentence, that deceives by suggestion: any idiot will agree he wants to be free of aggression. But every idiot will also substitute his definition of property(interests) to aggress against. Ergo, the statement is absolutely meaningless.

    Rothbardian ethics of Ghetto and Pale, were designed with malice of forethought NOT to equal European rule of law of reciprocity in interests both public and private. So that the Jewish method of fraud by baiting into hazard could persist, and European retaliation prohibited.

    There is only one source of liberty, and that is armed men with sufficient force to demand rule of law by self-determination, legal sovereignty, by reciprocity, adjudicated in an adversarial market(jury) of peers. Jews never had sovereignty, liberty, and never used reciprocity.

    So stop advocating Jewish libertarianism’s war against reciprocity, rule of law, and commons – because it’s another fraud like marxism, postmodernism, anti-male-feminism, and neoconservatism. It’s bait, argued by suggestion, to lure well-meaning fools into the hazard of failure.

  • Libertarianism – Common Property Version of Private Property Marxism

    —“The problem with libertarianism is that libertarians don’t agree on what libertarianism means. Some libertarians say that if you truly believe in the non-aggression principle then you must be an anarchist. Other libertarians say that anarchists are not libertarians. Wanting to abolish the state vs. minimize it is a big Some libertarians say that being a libertarian is about minding your own business and not judging other people’s lifestyles. Other libertarians say that libertarianism is solely about the role of the state. Which one is it?”— Julie Borowski

    “Non Aggression Principle” is an incomplete sentence, that deceives by suggestion: any idiot will agree he wants to be free of aggression. But every idiot will also substitute his definition of property(interests) to aggress against. Ergo, the statement is absolutely meaningless.

    Rothbardian ethics of Ghetto and Pale, were designed with malice of forethought NOT to equal European rule of law of reciprocity in interests both public and private. So that the Jewish method of fraud by baiting into hazard could persist, and European retaliation prohibited.

    There is only one source of liberty, and that is armed men with sufficient force to demand rule of law by self-determination, legal sovereignty, by reciprocity, adjudicated in an adversarial market(jury) of peers. Jews never had sovereignty, liberty, and never used reciprocity.

    So stop advocating Jewish libertarianism’s war against reciprocity, rule of law, and commons – because it’s another fraud like marxism, postmodernism, anti-male-feminism, and neoconservatism. It’s bait, argued by suggestion, to lure well-meaning fools into the hazard of failure.

  • “…only Europeans and the Chinese managed to maintain natural selection – by in

    “…only Europeans and the Chinese managed to maintain natural selection – by in

    —“…only Europeans and the Chinese managed to maintain natural selection – by infanticide, agrarian manorialism, markets, credit, and aggressive capital punishment.”—

    —“Or you can do what Europeans have done, throughout our history, and embrace the reason for Europea… https://t.co/iaNPPnUlJi


    Source date (UTC): 2020-07-25 22:10:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287148298449690628

  • “…only Europeans and the Chinese managed to maintain natural selection – by in

    “…only Europeans and the Chinese managed to maintain natural selection – by in

    —“…only Europeans and the Chinese managed to maintain natural selection – by infanticide, agrarian manorialism, markets, credit, and aggressive capital punishment.”—

    —“Or you can do what Europeans have done, throughout our history, and embrace the reason for Europea… https://t.co/iaNPPnUlJi

  • Eugenics

    EUGENICS

    —“The only necessary policy: Forced sterilization of the dependent sub-90’s would be the only policy necessary. Since 90 floats on the average, this policy would never have to change.”—

    That’s called ‘positive’ (or hard) eugenics’. Well, we did it successfully prewar. But the postwar (a)propaganda (b) prohibition on research (c) pseudointellectual movements of Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism are all predicated on suppressing this one continuation of natural selection. The industrial revolution ended it. And that means eugenics is a great filter, and that the end result is extinction.

    —“Not only will no one agree to this, but it has to be one of the darkest and most horrific approaches to dealing with ‘double-digiters’. A better way imo would be a 1 or no child policy for welfare.”—

    That’s called ‘negative’ (or soft) eugenics. Of course – that’s the right policy.  😉 And it’s what’s in our Constitutional recommendations.

  • Eugenics

    EUGENICS

    —“The only necessary policy: Forced sterilization of the dependent sub-90’s would be the only policy necessary. Since 90 floats on the average, this policy would never have to change.”—

    That’s called ‘positive’ (or hard) eugenics’. Well, we did it successfully prewar. But the postwar (a)propaganda (b) prohibition on research (c) pseudointellectual movements of Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism are all predicated on suppressing this one continuation of natural selection. The industrial revolution ended it. And that means eugenics is a great filter, and that the end result is extinction.

    —“Not only will no one agree to this, but it has to be one of the darkest and most horrific approaches to dealing with ‘double-digiters’. A better way imo would be a 1 or no child policy for welfare.”—

    That’s called ‘negative’ (or soft) eugenics. Of course – that’s the right policy.  😉 And it’s what’s in our Constitutional recommendations.