Theme: Cooperation

  • The problem is that we all want to ‘lie a bit’ and promote our individual strate

    The problem is that we all want to ‘lie a bit’ and promote our individual strategy over the Group’s and the Groups over Evolutionary Necessity: Mankind.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 01:36:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998376985368973313

    Reply addressees: @KialoHQ

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998376779592200193


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @KialoHQ 1) Moral Objectivity = Reciprocity:Natural Law(of Tort) independent of individual or group opinion.
    2) Moral Norms = Portfolios of rights and duties resulting in reciprocity within the group survival strategy.
    3) Moral Bias = Expression of gender and class reproductive strategy.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/998376779592200193


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @KialoHQ 1) Moral Objectivity = Reciprocity:Natural Law(of Tort) independent of individual or group opinion.
    2) Moral Norms = Portfolios of rights and duties resulting in reciprocity within the group survival strategy.
    3) Moral Bias = Expression of gender and class reproductive strategy.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/998376779592200193

  • There Is No Neutral Territory for Gods

    The strong do not start from the position of equality, or of desire for cooperation, but from the presumption that either you and yours create value via a productive exchange, or one’s you and yours are better punished, enserfed, enslaved, imprisoned, or killed. We deprive enemies of boycott. Either trade productively or die. Otherwise you are consuming the world’s resources which could be put to better use. Once you undrestand that our presumption is between extermination, enslavement, or productive exchange, you understand the folly of leaving open the option for boycott, resistance, or parasitism. There is no neutral territory for gods.

  • There Is No Neutral Territory for Gods

    The strong do not start from the position of equality, or of desire for cooperation, but from the presumption that either you and yours create value via a productive exchange, or one’s you and yours are better punished, enserfed, enslaved, imprisoned, or killed. We deprive enemies of boycott. Either trade productively or die. Otherwise you are consuming the world’s resources which could be put to better use. Once you undrestand that our presumption is between extermination, enslavement, or productive exchange, you understand the folly of leaving open the option for boycott, resistance, or parasitism. There is no neutral territory for gods.

  • If you won’t start the fight, fight, and end the fight by defeating the enemy co

    If you won’t start the fight, fight, and end the fight by defeating the enemy completely, you’re a free rider on those that do, not a man of virtue or character. The time to fight is coming.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 14:53:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998215018297659396

  • “If no one wants to avenge your death then you are doing something wrong.”—Noa

    —“If no one wants to avenge your death then you are doing something wrong.”—Noah J Revoy


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 22:35:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997969074205405190

  • “I won’t have any enemies unless I want to do evil. If you pursue good and seek

    —“I won’t have any enemies unless I want to do evil. If you pursue good and seek the truth, you are my brother.”– Aloysius Augustus

    (translated from español)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 22:30:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997967671575613445

  • “If no one wants to avenge your death then you are doing something wrong.”—Noa

    —“If no one wants to avenge your death then you are doing something wrong.”—Noah J Revoy


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 18:35:00 UTC

  • UPGRADE CYCLE OF MOVEMENTS You know when you’ve been out of college a while and

    UPGRADE CYCLE OF MOVEMENTS

    You know when you’ve been out of college a while and you realize you need to upgrade friends? I mean, they got you to this point, and maybe there is a keeper in there, but you really need to upgrade to people who more share your career, family, or lifestyle?

    Businesses go through a similar cycle, of selling to whomever they can get, to those who others don’t serve well, to those that are mainstream, to depending on their best customers, and if possible they shoot for ferrari-gucci territory of specializing in the pure signal market.

    Movements go through very similar evolutions. You start with the fringe because they’re the extreme novelty seekers. The fringe spreads your message to those seeking to augment their own novelties. Those spread to those seeking ideas. To those that are searching for solutions. To those that want a solution to rally around.

    What we fail to mention is that we must rid ourselves of people who might be a drag on the next market. And this is sometimes painful. Some people cannot follow. Some have followed enough. Some can follow, some drive, and some lead it. And if you are lucky you develop a group that leads it in different directions (I think that’s us) rather than tries to maintain control of it (as did NRx).

    Furthermore, there are people you must very clearly disassociate yourself, your business, or your movement from, because their desires for attention, influence, and control ( or to divide, or undermine ) your ability to gain the next more advantageous market.

    Most of you know how I work – very ‘thoroughly’ – by immersing myself in a subject, tearing it apart, and rebuilding what I can from the few grains of truth I found. I then use established groups as test subjects and attack those ideas – because the very passionate defend them intensely. If you are of a certain mind this can be fascinating to watch. If you are of other minds, this can be upsetting. But it is science at its best: exhaustive reduction to operational language.

    Over the past few days I’ve been working at making some very clear distinctions, and creating some distances. I have very clear reasons for doing this.

    I’ve never considered myself ‘alt right’ because it is synonymous with the use of critique (disapproval, ridicule, shaming, rallying, trolling, propagandizing) and utterly devoid of innovative solutions to the problems we face. Hence why I used ‘New Right’ until others coopted it.

    We have seen the main body of the previous alt right crash and burn since Charlottesville. We have seen the intellectual resistance ‘right’ (or rather then right classical liberals) take over the discourse. But they are just creating a thin veil of resistance against the onslaught of the Cathedral Complex.

    The question I want to answer, is where from here?

    For myself, I want to increase the number and quality people increasingly ‘the ordinary right’. Why?

    There is nothing unpalatable about my work – it’s an innovation on classical liberalism. I don’t hate on anyone. Every group can transcend. If we only end cosmopolitanism and take responsibility for doing it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 17:55:00 UTC

  • well, you know, the problem with taking what you want is numbers. the purpose of

    well, you know, the problem with taking what you want is numbers. the purpose of morality is that it increases your numbers. High trust moral civilizations produce awesome profits and therefore weapons.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 01:39:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997290460346449920

    Reply addressees: @someperson426

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997277729455198208


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997277729455198208

  • THE PROBLEM OF SACRILIZATION by Bill Anderson A value system is a fundamental bu

    THE PROBLEM OF SACRILIZATION

    by Bill Anderson

    A value system is a fundamental building block of cooperation, it must be shared by all members of the cooperative group.

    Religion = sacralized value system.

    The US Constitution was an attempt to sacralize a value system integrated with a market system.

    That experiment failed.

    Conclusion: markets are incapable of maintaining a sacralized value system. Market systems are too easily subverted, thus the value system is easily subverted.

    A “pope” is a king (sheriff) whose job is to defend a sacralized value system. The shared and sacralized value system is a necessary but insufficient precondition for civilization, and markets are a necessary but insufficient precondition of western civilization.

    A king is a sheriff whose job is to defend the extended family, known as the nation, and their collective assets (commons).

    Merchant, King, Pope.

    Western civilization depends on the Pope and the King cooperating to defend the commons, while allowing the Merchant to produce unmolested, except where his production consumes the shared value system or the nation’s commons.

    The Merchant must never be freed, he must always be a servant. He must be chained to the Family and to God.

    There can be no “market government”, where the Merchant is King.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 18:10:00 UTC