Apr 27, 2017 7:57am HERE IS WHY YOU’RE AN IDIOT: CAPITALISM VS SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM? Morons fall into the trap of capitalism vs communism, neither of which are possible, and both of which constitute means of parasitism, rather than advocating Rule of Natural Law. One can rule by command, one can rule by Religion, one can rule by Credit, and one can rule by Natural Law. Command does not require information, just obedience. Religion is a deception with which anything can be justified. Credit and financialization are a deception by which to abstractly steal from you. And only RULE OF NATURAL LAW requires productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer free of imposition of costs by externality. So markets in everything – public and private – MUST result from Natural Law. But natural law DOES NOT RESULT FROM CAPITALISM. (If you read this, I assume you’re not a moron. lol)
Theme: Coercion
-
Answering Practical Questions on Law
—“The world’s first murderer stands before a common law court. No applicable statute or precedent. How is law made?”— By Natural Law: reciprocity. The violation of reciprocity by aggression against life, body, mate, kin, property, interest. In history, common law developed to prevent reciprocity (retaliation), because of retaliation cycles. (Feuds) States imposed uniform laws once people came into conflict between groups. And if one ‘group’s punishments were too different from the others retaliation cycles would ensue (Feuds). —“Can you define reciprocity?”— Reciprocity is just the promise of doing unto others only as one would have done unto you; and not doing unto others that which you would not have done unto you. But once this is broken how do we restore a condition of reciprocity? We do so by restitution. –“Does restitution necessitate capital punishment?”– Technically it is impossible to perform restitution for murder except with capital punishment. However, in most cases it is possible to pay a high price for murder. And people generally have been forced to pay a high price depending upon the status of the killer and killed. But, in the end, the real reason we use capital punishment is because if someone will break the last rule, the one-rule, of not murdering, then they must be eliminated from the group. —“Standardization means that a superior authority is set?”— Not sure what you mean. Not authority, but decidability. Natural law is decidable. It’s perfectly decidable in all cases, everywhere, at all times, between all people. We can define restitution regardless of opinion or preference of members – in order to maintain ‘the peace’ (the rewards of cooperation). Natural law means people can’t prey upon each other. That is different from a standard. As far as I know that’s a truth. It’s just science. We don’t get to choose. Two people or parties can settle their differences however they want as long as the settlement of differences does not export harm or risk to others. but if we are asked or forced to resolve a conflict, we can do so by natural law regardless of our individual opinions. ––“If natural law means we can’t prey on each other, is it not a priori? Or is it empirically discovered as a function of the rewards of not preying?”— Well you know asking that question is fallacious. The apriori is simply a trivial case of the empirical, and the empirical merely a trivial case of the scientific. It’s observable, it’s logical, it’s possible, it’s demonstrable, and it’s thoroughly demonstrated – and moreover it’s actually impossible to contradict rationally. (You can’t even try to contradict it without confirming it.) I mean, we are part of the physical universe, despite our ability to outwit it on a regular basis through the use of sense, perception, memory, prediction, reason. If an organism tolerates parasitism and predation why does it do so? If an organism can cooperate, and cooperation produces extraordinary returns, and parasitism disincentivizes cooperation, and deprives an organism of returns, then what adaptation must an organism evolve in order to preserve cooperation? Just what we see: altruistic punishment (costly retaliation). Because even though retaliation is costly, the cumulative parasitism is much more costly, and possibly deadly. Any organism that can cooperate and becomes dependent upon cooperation cannot survive significant non-cooperation. However, some minimum of non-cooperation is necessary in order to preserve the incentive to preserve the instinct to punish parasites. And some minimum non-cooperation is necessary to provide evolutionary routes to superiority that may be integrated into the whole.
-
Answering Practical Questions on Law
—“The world’s first murderer stands before a common law court. No applicable statute or precedent. How is law made?”— By Natural Law: reciprocity. The violation of reciprocity by aggression against life, body, mate, kin, property, interest. In history, common law developed to prevent reciprocity (retaliation), because of retaliation cycles. (Feuds) States imposed uniform laws once people came into conflict between groups. And if one ‘group’s punishments were too different from the others retaliation cycles would ensue (Feuds). —“Can you define reciprocity?”— Reciprocity is just the promise of doing unto others only as one would have done unto you; and not doing unto others that which you would not have done unto you. But once this is broken how do we restore a condition of reciprocity? We do so by restitution. –“Does restitution necessitate capital punishment?”– Technically it is impossible to perform restitution for murder except with capital punishment. However, in most cases it is possible to pay a high price for murder. And people generally have been forced to pay a high price depending upon the status of the killer and killed. But, in the end, the real reason we use capital punishment is because if someone will break the last rule, the one-rule, of not murdering, then they must be eliminated from the group. —“Standardization means that a superior authority is set?”— Not sure what you mean. Not authority, but decidability. Natural law is decidable. It’s perfectly decidable in all cases, everywhere, at all times, between all people. We can define restitution regardless of opinion or preference of members – in order to maintain ‘the peace’ (the rewards of cooperation). Natural law means people can’t prey upon each other. That is different from a standard. As far as I know that’s a truth. It’s just science. We don’t get to choose. Two people or parties can settle their differences however they want as long as the settlement of differences does not export harm or risk to others. but if we are asked or forced to resolve a conflict, we can do so by natural law regardless of our individual opinions. ––“If natural law means we can’t prey on each other, is it not a priori? Or is it empirically discovered as a function of the rewards of not preying?”— Well you know asking that question is fallacious. The apriori is simply a trivial case of the empirical, and the empirical merely a trivial case of the scientific. It’s observable, it’s logical, it’s possible, it’s demonstrable, and it’s thoroughly demonstrated – and moreover it’s actually impossible to contradict rationally. (You can’t even try to contradict it without confirming it.) I mean, we are part of the physical universe, despite our ability to outwit it on a regular basis through the use of sense, perception, memory, prediction, reason. If an organism tolerates parasitism and predation why does it do so? If an organism can cooperate, and cooperation produces extraordinary returns, and parasitism disincentivizes cooperation, and deprives an organism of returns, then what adaptation must an organism evolve in order to preserve cooperation? Just what we see: altruistic punishment (costly retaliation). Because even though retaliation is costly, the cumulative parasitism is much more costly, and possibly deadly. Any organism that can cooperate and becomes dependent upon cooperation cannot survive significant non-cooperation. However, some minimum of non-cooperation is necessary in order to preserve the incentive to preserve the instinct to punish parasites. And some minimum non-cooperation is necessary to provide evolutionary routes to superiority that may be integrated into the whole.
-
The Joy Of Moral License to Use Violence
Men need moral license. They are all too happy to use violence when they have any chance of survival. There is nothing more spiritual than hunting, and nothing more exciting than hunting men. And once they experience it, they like it so much, they are often hard to return to previous condition. There is nothing more dangerous to a people than the soldiers who return for the peace.
-
The Joy Of Moral License to Use Violence
Men need moral license. They are all too happy to use violence when they have any chance of survival. There is nothing more spiritual than hunting, and nothing more exciting than hunting men. And once they experience it, they like it so much, they are often hard to return to previous condition. There is nothing more dangerous to a people than the soldiers who return for the peace.
-
Provoking Thoughts: Man’s First Occupation: Predator
The Greatest Happiness? To crush your enemies. To scatter and drive them before you. To burn their cities to ashes. To take their possessions. To hear the wails of their women. And, To rape their wives and daughters. That is what is best in life. As a few have noticed. By posting a quote by Genghis Khan, I was making a fairly serious statement. (Not the least of which was de-christianizing the translation of the original quote (which, if I remember correctly was spoken in mongolian, written down phonetically using *chinese* characters, translated into persian, translated into german, and then translated into english. I’m not positive but most of the ‘secret history’ followed that route. ) Now, in the context in which I made that post, I was trying to illustrate a few things at once: 1) That hunting man and animal *is* his preferred profession. And that man is not Rousseauian. It is not surprising that all other variations of the semi-sentient apes were exterminated upon our arrival. Nor why the only competition the great plagues have had is Islam first and communism second. 2) That we have spent a great deal of effort ‘regulating’ man’s preferred profession. And that the many achievements of man were made by suppressing that profession 3) **BUT**, that to CHOOSE the method of suppressing that profession requires we preserve that profession: hunting, killing, destroying, and taking – we can construct many orders from enslavement on one end to markets on the other. 4) And to preserve that profession such that we create the advanced order that we have in the ancient and modern worlds requires the Aryan (markets) and the Christian (the extirpation of hatred from the human heart.) 5) Because there is a vast difference between predation and parasitism of the khan, and the conquest and rule of people by the production of markets through which they transcend the beast, the slave, the serf, the freeman, the civilian, the sovereign – and the god. What we have failed to learn (which I am so glad someone reminded me of yesterday) is that having conquered from spain to china, and from the arctic circle to egypt, and having tried to create markets in each of those region, that we failed among all but our own. Therefore the evidence suggests that there is something special about our kin group, tribe, and race that makes markets possible. But if we must preserve the Aryan and the Christian to rule by natural law, we must also preserve the warrior to obtain and hold the condition of natural law. And we must preserve the warrior hunter’s joy and lust in Aryan and Christian forms, so that those that cannot transcend cannot harm us. If they can harm must they can be weakened. If they cannot be weakened they can be exterminated. Not with hatred, and not for profit, but for defense. Not for defense of us alone. But for the defense of human kind. And the transcendence we are inspired to achieve. So, (a) I want to cause you to attempt to disagree with this statement by stating it provocatively, (remember, this is the purpose of hyperbole that conservatives rely upon. the Asians use contradictions to cause you to think. Aristocracy uses hyperbole to cause you to think. (b) I want to force you to face a necessary truth: that violence is just a resource that we can use to create good by the incremental suppression of all means of parasitism – and that to incrementally suppress means of parasitism among hunters, requires that we maintain exceptional skill in hunting, killing, taking, destroying. (c) we created this world by mastering, professionalizing, and using violence to obtain and hold rule, through which we imposed markets, and the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. I experiment a lot. I run tests. All my arguments are tests. Each test constitutes an attempt to construct a proof. When they are complete (closed), parsimonious, and clear my tests are complete, and a proof constructed. But you should not dismiss the difference between an analytic list and an emotive or poetic bit of inspiration. They are attempts to make you (and i) think about those assumptions we hold, beliefs we hold, justifications we feel, and arguments we practice. So that not only are markets created, and not only is hatred extirpated, but that ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience, are removed from our thoughts.
-
Provoking Thoughts: Man’s First Occupation: Predator
The Greatest Happiness? To crush your enemies. To scatter and drive them before you. To burn their cities to ashes. To take their possessions. To hear the wails of their women. And, To rape their wives and daughters. That is what is best in life. As a few have noticed. By posting a quote by Genghis Khan, I was making a fairly serious statement. (Not the least of which was de-christianizing the translation of the original quote (which, if I remember correctly was spoken in mongolian, written down phonetically using *chinese* characters, translated into persian, translated into german, and then translated into english. I’m not positive but most of the ‘secret history’ followed that route. ) Now, in the context in which I made that post, I was trying to illustrate a few things at once: 1) That hunting man and animal *is* his preferred profession. And that man is not Rousseauian. It is not surprising that all other variations of the semi-sentient apes were exterminated upon our arrival. Nor why the only competition the great plagues have had is Islam first and communism second. 2) That we have spent a great deal of effort ‘regulating’ man’s preferred profession. And that the many achievements of man were made by suppressing that profession 3) **BUT**, that to CHOOSE the method of suppressing that profession requires we preserve that profession: hunting, killing, destroying, and taking – we can construct many orders from enslavement on one end to markets on the other. 4) And to preserve that profession such that we create the advanced order that we have in the ancient and modern worlds requires the Aryan (markets) and the Christian (the extirpation of hatred from the human heart.) 5) Because there is a vast difference between predation and parasitism of the khan, and the conquest and rule of people by the production of markets through which they transcend the beast, the slave, the serf, the freeman, the civilian, the sovereign – and the god. What we have failed to learn (which I am so glad someone reminded me of yesterday) is that having conquered from spain to china, and from the arctic circle to egypt, and having tried to create markets in each of those region, that we failed among all but our own. Therefore the evidence suggests that there is something special about our kin group, tribe, and race that makes markets possible. But if we must preserve the Aryan and the Christian to rule by natural law, we must also preserve the warrior to obtain and hold the condition of natural law. And we must preserve the warrior hunter’s joy and lust in Aryan and Christian forms, so that those that cannot transcend cannot harm us. If they can harm must they can be weakened. If they cannot be weakened they can be exterminated. Not with hatred, and not for profit, but for defense. Not for defense of us alone. But for the defense of human kind. And the transcendence we are inspired to achieve. So, (a) I want to cause you to attempt to disagree with this statement by stating it provocatively, (remember, this is the purpose of hyperbole that conservatives rely upon. the Asians use contradictions to cause you to think. Aristocracy uses hyperbole to cause you to think. (b) I want to force you to face a necessary truth: that violence is just a resource that we can use to create good by the incremental suppression of all means of parasitism – and that to incrementally suppress means of parasitism among hunters, requires that we maintain exceptional skill in hunting, killing, taking, destroying. (c) we created this world by mastering, professionalizing, and using violence to obtain and hold rule, through which we imposed markets, and the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. I experiment a lot. I run tests. All my arguments are tests. Each test constitutes an attempt to construct a proof. When they are complete (closed), parsimonious, and clear my tests are complete, and a proof constructed. But you should not dismiss the difference between an analytic list and an emotive or poetic bit of inspiration. They are attempts to make you (and i) think about those assumptions we hold, beliefs we hold, justifications we feel, and arguments we practice. So that not only are markets created, and not only is hatred extirpated, but that ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience, are removed from our thoughts.
-
Zero Tolerance
ZERO TOLERANCE?—“I can’t help but think of the little boy who was rail roaded by “Zero Tolerance” All he did was bite his poptart into the shape of a gun… Got suspended…Empirical evidencial judgement is the wind before the chaff.”— Anne Tripp Well the question is, zero tolerance for WHAT? (Same problem as Non Aggression. Non aggression against what?) Did he say or do anything false? (no) Did he try to defraud anyone? (no) Did he impose a cost on others (no) Ergo, no crime. Or as we say ‘no harm no foul’ Conversely, would someone be able to compose such a regulation against a child if we lived under zero tolerance for impositions against natural law? Well, no. See? Natural law solves the problem of decidability. Always and Everywhere. -
Zero Tolerance
ZERO TOLERANCE?—“I can’t help but think of the little boy who was rail roaded by “Zero Tolerance” All he did was bite his poptart into the shape of a gun… Got suspended…Empirical evidencial judgement is the wind before the chaff.”— Anne Tripp Well the question is, zero tolerance for WHAT? (Same problem as Non Aggression. Non aggression against what?) Did he say or do anything false? (no) Did he try to defraud anyone? (no) Did he impose a cost on others (no) Ergo, no crime. Or as we say ‘no harm no foul’ Conversely, would someone be able to compose such a regulation against a child if we lived under zero tolerance for impositions against natural law? Well, no. See? Natural law solves the problem of decidability. Always and Everywhere. -
THE MILITIA SEPARATES THE WEST FROM THE REST by Ryan Williams The militia is t
THE MILITIA SEPARATES THE WEST FROM THE REST
by Ryan Williams
The militia is the institution that is the causal source of the West’s success – that which separates us from the rest of the world.
To be a Propertarian is to prosecute lies
To prosecute, you must have the means to coerce
To coerce you must have weapons
To use weapons you must have skill
To have skill you must practice
To practice you must have discipline
Leave the momentary pleasures behind, and go sharpen your tools. We have work to do.
“Teach him he must deny himself,” said Lee. That was the general’s advice to a young mother who brought her infant to him after the War Between the States to receive his blessing.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 14:56:00 UTC