WHY SOUTH AMERICA? 1. Population of natives and slaves. 2. christianity => increase trust to increase cooperation. 3. church => will to power by the weak. 4. church => high rates of reproduction, mysticism to govern them and anti-empiricism and anti-meritocracy to maintain control over them. 5. high rates of reproduction => underclass poverty 6. vast underclass poverty => demand for socialism. 7. demand for socialism => demand for authority instead of rule of law. 8. lack of rule of law = lack of militia to defend against corruption under rule of law by threat of overthrow. This is the cycle of poverty, dysgenia, corruption, and stagnation under the church – a cycle only broken in northern europe by aristocratic manorialism to suppress the growth of the underclass, and the subsequent middle class restoration of trade, and the subsequent restoration of rule of law, and the subsequent wealth, and the subsequent literacy, and the subsequent break with the parasitism mysticism and dysgenia of the church, and the subsequent conquest of the world, and the subsequent industrial, scientific, technical, medical, and informational revolutions, and the subsequent dragging of mankind – kicking and screaming against the european aristocracy – out of their addiction to ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the victimhood of nature all but hostile to life. Then the academy, which had evolved as an extension of the church to teach church dogma, shifted from mythology, theology, and the granting of indulgences to alternate history, pseudoscience, and the granting of useless diplomas under the second jewish attack on western civilization.
Theme: Cooperation
-
The Dependence on Land and The Variation in Group Strategies
–“I was working the rather large winter garden this afternoon I have planted with my father. Thinking about the respective Peloponnesian and Delian strategies. It got me thinking about two things. Agricultural productivity / output and the concurrent effervescence of commercial activity, economic growth, and thus civilisational expansion (consider this also in a Rome vs Carthage context too). The second angle was the context of one’s own personal independence and self-sovereignty, in this sense as a landowner, either large or small scale. Be it in terms of food supply, land as a hold of value, and also as an individual / family / community area with which to defend one’s own assets. Whilst Australia and America have different cultures and expressions of “homesteading” there are some similarities too, you might call it a “dying frontier of the self-owned man”. Do you have any pointers or suggestions from a Propertarian standpoint?”— A Friend
[Y]es, you have the correct insight, that I would translate as “If a man is dependent upon the land, he intuits others are also dependent upon the land, and that he cannot defend his land nor can others without collective defense of land, and collective defense by almost everyone. This is the opposite of migratory pastoralists and disaporic traders (Carthage), or diasporic usurers (Jews), or diasporic thieves(gypsies), or diasporic raiders(muslims), diasporic rent seekers(russians, mongols), but not the same as settled(germans, spartans) or diasporic producers (europeans, chinese – and what should have been hindus). That is because we specialize in different strategies and our value of territory, built capital, institutional, and cultural commons, differs by where our revenue comes from and the composition of our ‘armies’ and the strategy that these men use for control of predation (raiding), parasitism (extractive rule, usury, theft), or domestication (productive rule, settlement, common capital production.)
-
The Dependence on Land and The Variation in Group Strategies
–“I was working the rather large winter garden this afternoon I have planted with my father. Thinking about the respective Peloponnesian and Delian strategies. It got me thinking about two things. Agricultural productivity / output and the concurrent effervescence of commercial activity, economic growth, and thus civilisational expansion (consider this also in a Rome vs Carthage context too). The second angle was the context of one’s own personal independence and self-sovereignty, in this sense as a landowner, either large or small scale. Be it in terms of food supply, land as a hold of value, and also as an individual / family / community area with which to defend one’s own assets. Whilst Australia and America have different cultures and expressions of “homesteading” there are some similarities too, you might call it a “dying frontier of the self-owned man”. Do you have any pointers or suggestions from a Propertarian standpoint?”— A Friend
[Y]es, you have the correct insight, that I would translate as “If a man is dependent upon the land, he intuits others are also dependent upon the land, and that he cannot defend his land nor can others without collective defense of land, and collective defense by almost everyone. This is the opposite of migratory pastoralists and disaporic traders (Carthage), or diasporic usurers (Jews), or diasporic thieves(gypsies), or diasporic raiders(muslims), diasporic rent seekers(russians, mongols), but not the same as settled(germans, spartans) or diasporic producers (europeans, chinese – and what should have been hindus). That is because we specialize in different strategies and our value of territory, built capital, institutional, and cultural commons, differs by where our revenue comes from and the composition of our ‘armies’ and the strategy that these men use for control of predation (raiding), parasitism (extractive rule, usury, theft), or domestication (productive rule, settlement, common capital production.)
-
You’re help would be welcome and the result would be a great help for all of us
You’re help would be welcome and the result would be a great help for all of us.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 13:59:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253685078829543424
Reply addressees: @unfinis06265716 @YouTube
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253684762855657473
-
THE DEPENDENCE ON LAND AND THE VARIATION IN GROUP STRATEGIES –“I was working th
THE DEPENDENCE ON LAND AND THE VARIATION IN GROUP STRATEGIES
–“I was working the rather large winter garden this afternoon I have planted with my father.
Thinking about the respective Peloponnesian and Delian strategies. It got me thinking about two things. Agricultural productivity / output and the concurrent effervescence of commercial activity, economic growth, and thus civilisational expansion (consider this also in a Rome vs Carthage context too).
The second angle was the context of one’s own personal independence and self-sovereignty, in this sense as a landowner, either large or small scale. Be it in terms of food supply, land as a hold of value, and also as an individual / family / community area with which to defend one’s own assets.
Whilst Australia and America have different cultures and expressions of “homesteading” there are some similarities too, you might call it a “dying frontier of the self-owned man”.
Do you have any pointers or suggestions from a Propertarian standpoint?”— A Friend
Yes, you have the correct insight, that I would translate as “If a man is dependent upon the land, he intuits others are also dependent upon the land, and that he cannot defend his land nor can others without collective defense of land, and collective defense by almost everyone.
This is the opposite of migratory pastoralists and disaporic traders (Carthage), or diasporic usurers (Jews), or diasporic thieves(gypsies), or diasporic raiders(muslims), diasporic rent seekers(russians, mongols), but not the same as settled(germans, spartans) or diasporic producers (europeans, chinese – and what should have been hindus).
That is because we specialize in different strategies and our value of territory, built capital, institutional, and cultural commons, differs by where our revenue comes from and the composition of our ‘armies’ and the strategy that these men use for control of predation (raiding), parasitism (extractive rule, usury, theft), or domestication (productive rule, settlement, common capital production.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 12:15:00 UTC
-
What Is It that Christianity – or Any Religion – Provides?
(it’s really simple)
—“Christianity doesn’t provide comfort. It, like Buddhism and some other religions, is existentially terrifying. You need to grapple with a good Christian scholar like Edward Feser.”— Rik Storey
That is counter to the evidence. The monster under the bed is terrifying if you are a child. Most of us grow out of it. Not all of us. But, most. The only thing most of us are terrified by is our irrelevance, inadequacy and smallness in the face of a universe we appear to be the only seed so far to plant in it. Stoicism provides insulation from signaling. Buddhism provides insulation from signaling. Christianity provides insulation from signaling. Judaism provides insulation from signaling. Islam provides insulation from signaling. Hindu castes provide insulation from signaling. The reason all organized religions emerged at the same time was the increase in trade, division of labor, power distance, and the emergence of classes, and the all-too-human need, exponentially exacerbated by the feminine mind, for ‘not being left behind’. Each of these techniques provides psychological insulation from status signals of inferiority which cause humans emotional anxiety or panic, that interferes with thought, reason, and action, and instead trains the practitioner to develop varying degrees of mindfulness at the risk of addiction to the euphoria from manufacturing a mental state (the opposite of rage), that prevents him or her from productive participation with others in the division of labor that makes his religion necessary but provides his existence. The christian religion begins with a false debt, a false threat of not repaying it with debt servitude, and a feminine figure of love to encourage you to keep paying, in exchange for insulation from status signals, and the continuous stress of continuous adaptation to those opportunities and threats. Unfortunately just as lying and crime are cheaper means of discounting than truth and productivity, the cheap equivalent of status deception is materialism, alienation, undermining, gossiping, rallying, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing, and the rest of the feminine techniques. The Jewish and Islamic are far worse versions – if I had the energy I’d equally enumerate them here. The Buddhist, and Hindu are far less worse, and the stoic and Epicurean entirely truthful and good, with the family cult of hearth, and the burgher cult of law, and the aristocratic cult (the one I internalize) of ancestral pagans (war, heroism, achievement), available to those fearless of status competition, material or otherwise – playing th greatest status gam of all: the power to change the world, leave a mark upon it, and to be remembered. As for idle threats of debating ‘scholars’. The only people that try to debate me are people too stupid not to. I would crush any theological scholar. And it would be trivial because my argument always comes down to true, operational, and empirical, whereas the faithful are stuck with the sophomoric supernatural and presumed good. And stuck with agreement on consequence. I’m certain that they would avoid debating me at all costs. There is nothing good in our religions that cannot be explained in adult terms. But again, the difference between truth and experience exists. the temperature and frequency of red is not the same as the experience of red. There is a consequential experience from the perception of red. There is a consequential experience from the understanding of spectrum, frequency, and temperature. It is our knowledge via competition between experience and cause that prevents errors in either. All knowledge is gained by adversarial means. It must be. But, even such, there is little value in crushing others. My goal, which is visible in the most recent podcast (#0003) is unification via-negativa. And this requires continuous research. This is not to consent to religious attempts at dominating others by social construction of mysticism. It is by explaining why Jesus was correct and an innovator on one hand; why christianity was not his invention but others;. That those others had political intentions; that this ‘churchianity’ was for the purpose of destruction; and why the abrahamic dogmas compete by denial of one of gods laws – laws that explain the failure of these religions to achieve their false promises. Truths: 1. The evidence of the hand of god: The Laws of nature, the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity, the christian law of love and charity(seduction by forgiveness), and the evolutionary law of transcendence.
- The Group strategy of the european peoples
(explanation of adaptive, innovative, maneuver, in time.) The political Strategy of the European Peoples
(explanation of Trifunctionalism: military, law, faith)The social strategy of the european peoples
(explanation of self determination: sovereignty, reciprocity, … … markets in everything)The Personal Strategy of the european peoples:
(heroism, excellence, beauty, truth, duty, productivity, and leaving the world transformed for the better for having lived in it – seek to be remembered.)The price of the european peoples strategy.
(explanation of the prevention of the reproduction of the unproductive so that resources can be devoted to the production of commons)The industry of the european people
(profiting from the continuous domestication then transcendence (evolution) of man from animal to semi domesticated animal, to fully human, to the gods we imagine.)
This is the law of the masculine european aristocracy, whether military or legal. The church is for women, children, the old, and the weak. Frederik was right.
—“”Christianity … is an old metaphysical fiction, stuffed with fables, contradictions and absurdities: it was spawned in the fevered imagination of the Orientals, and then spread to our Europe, where some fanatics espoused it, where some intriguers pretended to be convinced by it and where some imbeciles actually believed it”.”—Frederick to Voltaire (June 1738).
That said, it does WORK as a source of mindfulness, and the faithful make an exceptional citizenry for the aristocracy, and work force for the burghers, and are extremely honest in their participation in the law; and can be called to war with fervor without caution. And are the least-vulnerable to the second semitic destruction of western civilization by marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism and denialism. The question is – how to save it in an era where with each passing generation only the fundamentalists survive, and those who are not fundamentalists abandon both the faith, the institutions, the traditions, and loyalty and defense of the faithful.
- The Group strategy of the european peoples
-
What Is It that Christianity – or Any Religion – Provides?
(it’s really simple)
—“Christianity doesn’t provide comfort. It, like Buddhism and some other religions, is existentially terrifying. You need to grapple with a good Christian scholar like Edward Feser.”— Rik Storey
That is counter to the evidence. The monster under the bed is terrifying if you are a child. Most of us grow out of it. Not all of us. But, most. The only thing most of us are terrified by is our irrelevance, inadequacy and smallness in the face of a universe we appear to be the only seed so far to plant in it. Stoicism provides insulation from signaling. Buddhism provides insulation from signaling. Christianity provides insulation from signaling. Judaism provides insulation from signaling. Islam provides insulation from signaling. Hindu castes provide insulation from signaling. The reason all organized religions emerged at the same time was the increase in trade, division of labor, power distance, and the emergence of classes, and the all-too-human need, exponentially exacerbated by the feminine mind, for ‘not being left behind’. Each of these techniques provides psychological insulation from status signals of inferiority which cause humans emotional anxiety or panic, that interferes with thought, reason, and action, and instead trains the practitioner to develop varying degrees of mindfulness at the risk of addiction to the euphoria from manufacturing a mental state (the opposite of rage), that prevents him or her from productive participation with others in the division of labor that makes his religion necessary but provides his existence. The christian religion begins with a false debt, a false threat of not repaying it with debt servitude, and a feminine figure of love to encourage you to keep paying, in exchange for insulation from status signals, and the continuous stress of continuous adaptation to those opportunities and threats. Unfortunately just as lying and crime are cheaper means of discounting than truth and productivity, the cheap equivalent of status deception is materialism, alienation, undermining, gossiping, rallying, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing, and the rest of the feminine techniques. The Jewish and Islamic are far worse versions – if I had the energy I’d equally enumerate them here. The Buddhist, and Hindu are far less worse, and the stoic and Epicurean entirely truthful and good, with the family cult of hearth, and the burgher cult of law, and the aristocratic cult (the one I internalize) of ancestral pagans (war, heroism, achievement), available to those fearless of status competition, material or otherwise – playing th greatest status gam of all: the power to change the world, leave a mark upon it, and to be remembered. As for idle threats of debating ‘scholars’. The only people that try to debate me are people too stupid not to. I would crush any theological scholar. And it would be trivial because my argument always comes down to true, operational, and empirical, whereas the faithful are stuck with the sophomoric supernatural and presumed good. And stuck with agreement on consequence. I’m certain that they would avoid debating me at all costs. There is nothing good in our religions that cannot be explained in adult terms. But again, the difference between truth and experience exists. the temperature and frequency of red is not the same as the experience of red. There is a consequential experience from the perception of red. There is a consequential experience from the understanding of spectrum, frequency, and temperature. It is our knowledge via competition between experience and cause that prevents errors in either. All knowledge is gained by adversarial means. It must be. But, even such, there is little value in crushing others. My goal, which is visible in the most recent podcast (#0003) is unification via-negativa. And this requires continuous research. This is not to consent to religious attempts at dominating others by social construction of mysticism. It is by explaining why Jesus was correct and an innovator on one hand; why christianity was not his invention but others;. That those others had political intentions; that this ‘churchianity’ was for the purpose of destruction; and why the abrahamic dogmas compete by denial of one of gods laws – laws that explain the failure of these religions to achieve their false promises. Truths: 1. The evidence of the hand of god: The Laws of nature, the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity, the christian law of love and charity(seduction by forgiveness), and the evolutionary law of transcendence.
- The Group strategy of the european peoples
(explanation of adaptive, innovative, maneuver, in time.) The political Strategy of the European Peoples
(explanation of Trifunctionalism: military, law, faith)The social strategy of the european peoples
(explanation of self determination: sovereignty, reciprocity, … … markets in everything)The Personal Strategy of the european peoples:
(heroism, excellence, beauty, truth, duty, productivity, and leaving the world transformed for the better for having lived in it – seek to be remembered.)The price of the european peoples strategy.
(explanation of the prevention of the reproduction of the unproductive so that resources can be devoted to the production of commons)The industry of the european people
(profiting from the continuous domestication then transcendence (evolution) of man from animal to semi domesticated animal, to fully human, to the gods we imagine.)
This is the law of the masculine european aristocracy, whether military or legal. The church is for women, children, the old, and the weak. Frederik was right.
—“”Christianity … is an old metaphysical fiction, stuffed with fables, contradictions and absurdities: it was spawned in the fevered imagination of the Orientals, and then spread to our Europe, where some fanatics espoused it, where some intriguers pretended to be convinced by it and where some imbeciles actually believed it”.”—Frederick to Voltaire (June 1738).
That said, it does WORK as a source of mindfulness, and the faithful make an exceptional citizenry for the aristocracy, and work force for the burghers, and are extremely honest in their participation in the law; and can be called to war with fervor without caution. And are the least-vulnerable to the second semitic destruction of western civilization by marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism and denialism. The question is – how to save it in an era where with each passing generation only the fundamentalists survive, and those who are not fundamentalists abandon both the faith, the institutions, the traditions, and loyalty and defense of the faithful.
- The Group strategy of the european peoples
-
Conspiracy of Common Interests vs Of Intent
Conspiracy of Common Interests vs Of Intent https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/conspiracy-of-common-interests-vs-of-intent/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 19:56:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253412428626313219
-
Conspiracy of Common Interests vs Of Intent
—“Maybe I’m unclear on what you mean by intent. It seems to me incentives and intent are interlinked.”—Scott Strong
CONSPIRACY OF COMMON INTERESTS: Passively follow incentives to seize existing opportunity – and fail to not seize opportunity that is immoral. CONSPIRACY OF INTENT: Actively work to create opportunities to seize because they are immoral. CONSPIRACY OF IDIOCY: Actively work to crate opportunities to seize that are immoral because you falsely believe that they are moral (you justify them) CONSPIRACY TO BAIT INTO HAZARD: Actively work to create opportunities for others to seize that produce immoral consequences.
-
Paternal Rebuke of The Infantilized
PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences. The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism. Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development. And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child. If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life. The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done. Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal. -Quod Erat Demonstrandum