Curt Doolittle

Theme: Crisis

  • Islamism and Soviets (now Persia and Islamism)

    Jan 22, 2020, 10:40 AM by Radu M Oleniuc The KGB had more than 500 high profile agents in Islamic countries back in the 70s. They realized the potential of religious war against the US. This is the moment where long time Marxists imposed burka and grow themselves beards (remember how Egypt and Iran was back in the 70s – no fundamentalism, and how it is today). They used religion as a tactic, nothing more. In some respect, this is the same method used by some Jews who don’t know Torah, are not religious at all, sometimes they don’t even believe in God (they don’t care much about the Israel state either), but at the same time they identify as (religious) Jews to silence everyone as antisemite or even a fascist, whey someone is criticizing them. The dogma was intertwined with politics, and this was used as a weapon against the western world. The Islamists we face today learned their style of warfare from the Soviets, who established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as “the fulcrum of the Soviet Union’s strategic approach” to world revolution, especially control of the Middle East. At the time, President Reagan was battling the Soviet empire, including its support for international terrorist groups. Lofton reminded his readers of many facts about the Soviet-supported international terrorist networks. These facts are extremely relevant today. … Lofton wrote about and has to conclude that the modern-day Islamic terrorists we face today grew out of these communist networks that the Soviets sponsored. … What we have learned since that time is that PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was actually a trained KGB operative. The case of Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist, is perhaps more significant. He converted to Islam. … Jeff Jeffrey R. Nyquist asks, “When we learn that a leading commander in ISIL was born in the Soviet Union and trained in Russia, we ought to wonder what is really going on?” Omar al-Shishani, the Russian commander in ISIL (also known as ISIS or the Islamic State), has been reported to be the group’s overall military chief. We have heard repeatedly about Americans and Europeans fighting for ISIL, but little attention is being devoted to the Russian-speaking foreign fighters that make up the group. Their numbers are estimated at 500 or more. Omar al-Shishani is usually described as a prominent Islamic State fighter who is Chechen. In fact, he was born in the former Soviet republic of Georgia and was trained there. … Before we jump to conclusions that Russia is on our side in fighting ISIS, it might be wise to examine the history of international terrorism, its Soviet roots, and Russia’s ties to these networks today. President Obama told “60 Minutes” on Sunday that the U.S. intelligence community had “underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.” So what do we know about this mysterious entity called ISIS? Could Russia be playing both sides in this conflict as part of a geopolitical game to safeguard its Iranian client state? … Our media think that because the Soviet Union died and a modern Russia supposedly emerged in its place, these issues are irrelevant. But the head of this new Russia is a former KGB spy who wants to reconstitute the former Soviet Union. He invaded Ukraine. Is it really too much to believe that the Kremlin has had a hand in the rise of ISIS? https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10152796343961565   PARALLELS: ISLAM AND SOVIET SOCIALISM – AND CONSEQUENCES by Radu M Oleniuc (must read) Islam, like soviet socialism, is founded on a dual basis : on the one hand the ideological foundation, and on the other the imposition of that ideology through armed force. The combination of the two is characteristic. The earliest person to speak of this was Sima Qian, one of the greatest intellectuals in China, a historian, who was also prime minister. As an intellectual and as prime minister, he was perfectly acquainted with a system based both on ideology and on violence. In his letter to Jen An, which dates back to 91 B.C., he explains that, in such a system, there can be only two solutions :

    • physical death : you oppose the system and in that case you are killed

    • spiritual death : you pretend to believe in the ideology, and in that case you wear a mask.

    (but “the mask sticks to your face”, as Sima Qian said later in his books. The mask becomes you, and you become what you did not ever wanted to be. The whole process can last for years, or several generations, but JUST AS IT HAPPENED IN COMMUNISM, the phenomenon always ends with exactly the same results – and btw, this explains also the high approval rate of Putin, or the 99% who voted for Saddam. It’s not only fear driving these men, it’s much much more). Thus, according to Sima Qian, in a system founded both on force and on ideology, one can choose only between physical death and spiritual death. That is precisely the structure of Islam, founded both on ideology and on the use of armed force. Then there’s the interior violence that is exerted on the ‘dhimmis’, or peoples conquered by the Muslim armies, who lose all their political rights and the greater part of their civil rights, and who become foreigners in their own country. They are driven to extinction by a combination of methods. Throughout antiquity, and right up until the second half of the 19th century, there were fluctuations in population due either to famines, or to epidemics, or to wars. After each decline, the population would increase again until it reached its equilibrium, that is, the maximum number of people who could live on the land considering the agricultural techniques available. The Muslims built new towns, Oran, Cordoba, Cairo, etc. while slaughtering or deporting the local populations, and peopling the towns with Arabs either from the Hedjaz region or from Syria. It is a general phenomenon. Thus the Turkish population, initially 100% Christian, had fallen to 30% Christian by 1900, and is 0.2% Christian today. [We have the similar example of Pakistan today, or Egypt, Syria etc] Secular constitutions in Europe evolved and are separated from religion only where Christianity was properly applied. Because this concept exist only in this part of the world, for thousands of years. In Islam is not like that. In Islam the religion IS the state. 90% of Islam deals with civil problems, administration, regulations and so on. For Muslim scholars, Islam is “Dîn, Dunya, Daoula” (i.e. religion, society, state). And even a single comma is “sacred” in their book, thus cannot be changed – not like here, where we had dozens of versions (some conflicting among themselves) of the Bible. Hundreds of light years away from Virginia Convention or from “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God”. Hundreds of years away from the “wall of separation” of Roger Williams (a priest) or later, Jefferson. This is why they will NEVER reform their states. Not to mention the fact it is enforced with the sword at every step. In Christianity there is the concept of sword as well (Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace, but a sword.”). But it is not used as a violent means to something (only for defensive purposes – at his trial “bring only two swords”), and only to separate “mother from the daughter, son from father” etc. As any sin is an individual sin, not a collective one (a revolutionary concept again, at the time). And here comes individual responsibility in jurisprudence and coutumes. Yakuza and Japanese culture doesn’t understand this at all. They can pass “sins” (in the Old Greek the word for sin is debt) among others, and usually a low tier subaltern pays / takes the punishment for the boss, a habit that is so typical for any collectivist society (and this with ‘honor’ – crazy). This is a very long talk. At the end, I guess we must understand why Marcel Gauchet said “Christianity is the religion to end all other religions”, as it is the exit from dogma, cheap mysticism, forced morals (good by force), collectivism and so on. As all of the concepts we take from granted evolved very hard, but to conclude, we must understand why they happened ONLY in this part of the world. https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10153609756561565    

  • Islamism and Soviets (now Persia and Islamism)

    Jan 22, 2020, 10:40 AM by Radu M Oleniuc The KGB had more than 500 high profile agents in Islamic countries back in the 70s. They realized the potential of religious war against the US. This is the moment where long time Marxists imposed burka and grow themselves beards (remember how Egypt and Iran was back in the 70s – no fundamentalism, and how it is today). They used religion as a tactic, nothing more. In some respect, this is the same method used by some Jews who don’t know Torah, are not religious at all, sometimes they don’t even believe in God (they don’t care much about the Israel state either), but at the same time they identify as (religious) Jews to silence everyone as antisemite or even a fascist, whey someone is criticizing them. The dogma was intertwined with politics, and this was used as a weapon against the western world. The Islamists we face today learned their style of warfare from the Soviets, who established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as “the fulcrum of the Soviet Union’s strategic approach” to world revolution, especially control of the Middle East. At the time, President Reagan was battling the Soviet empire, including its support for international terrorist groups. Lofton reminded his readers of many facts about the Soviet-supported international terrorist networks. These facts are extremely relevant today. … Lofton wrote about and has to conclude that the modern-day Islamic terrorists we face today grew out of these communist networks that the Soviets sponsored. … What we have learned since that time is that PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was actually a trained KGB operative. The case of Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist, is perhaps more significant. He converted to Islam. … Jeff Jeffrey R. Nyquist asks, “When we learn that a leading commander in ISIL was born in the Soviet Union and trained in Russia, we ought to wonder what is really going on?” Omar al-Shishani, the Russian commander in ISIL (also known as ISIS or the Islamic State), has been reported to be the group’s overall military chief. We have heard repeatedly about Americans and Europeans fighting for ISIL, but little attention is being devoted to the Russian-speaking foreign fighters that make up the group. Their numbers are estimated at 500 or more. Omar al-Shishani is usually described as a prominent Islamic State fighter who is Chechen. In fact, he was born in the former Soviet republic of Georgia and was trained there. … Before we jump to conclusions that Russia is on our side in fighting ISIS, it might be wise to examine the history of international terrorism, its Soviet roots, and Russia’s ties to these networks today. President Obama told “60 Minutes” on Sunday that the U.S. intelligence community had “underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.” So what do we know about this mysterious entity called ISIS? Could Russia be playing both sides in this conflict as part of a geopolitical game to safeguard its Iranian client state? … Our media think that because the Soviet Union died and a modern Russia supposedly emerged in its place, these issues are irrelevant. But the head of this new Russia is a former KGB spy who wants to reconstitute the former Soviet Union. He invaded Ukraine. Is it really too much to believe that the Kremlin has had a hand in the rise of ISIS? https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10152796343961565   PARALLELS: ISLAM AND SOVIET SOCIALISM – AND CONSEQUENCES by Radu M Oleniuc (must read) Islam, like soviet socialism, is founded on a dual basis : on the one hand the ideological foundation, and on the other the imposition of that ideology through armed force. The combination of the two is characteristic. The earliest person to speak of this was Sima Qian, one of the greatest intellectuals in China, a historian, who was also prime minister. As an intellectual and as prime minister, he was perfectly acquainted with a system based both on ideology and on violence. In his letter to Jen An, which dates back to 91 B.C., he explains that, in such a system, there can be only two solutions :

    • physical death : you oppose the system and in that case you are killed

    • spiritual death : you pretend to believe in the ideology, and in that case you wear a mask.

    (but “the mask sticks to your face”, as Sima Qian said later in his books. The mask becomes you, and you become what you did not ever wanted to be. The whole process can last for years, or several generations, but JUST AS IT HAPPENED IN COMMUNISM, the phenomenon always ends with exactly the same results – and btw, this explains also the high approval rate of Putin, or the 99% who voted for Saddam. It’s not only fear driving these men, it’s much much more). Thus, according to Sima Qian, in a system founded both on force and on ideology, one can choose only between physical death and spiritual death. That is precisely the structure of Islam, founded both on ideology and on the use of armed force. Then there’s the interior violence that is exerted on the ‘dhimmis’, or peoples conquered by the Muslim armies, who lose all their political rights and the greater part of their civil rights, and who become foreigners in their own country. They are driven to extinction by a combination of methods. Throughout antiquity, and right up until the second half of the 19th century, there were fluctuations in population due either to famines, or to epidemics, or to wars. After each decline, the population would increase again until it reached its equilibrium, that is, the maximum number of people who could live on the land considering the agricultural techniques available. The Muslims built new towns, Oran, Cordoba, Cairo, etc. while slaughtering or deporting the local populations, and peopling the towns with Arabs either from the Hedjaz region or from Syria. It is a general phenomenon. Thus the Turkish population, initially 100% Christian, had fallen to 30% Christian by 1900, and is 0.2% Christian today. [We have the similar example of Pakistan today, or Egypt, Syria etc] Secular constitutions in Europe evolved and are separated from religion only where Christianity was properly applied. Because this concept exist only in this part of the world, for thousands of years. In Islam is not like that. In Islam the religion IS the state. 90% of Islam deals with civil problems, administration, regulations and so on. For Muslim scholars, Islam is “Dîn, Dunya, Daoula” (i.e. religion, society, state). And even a single comma is “sacred” in their book, thus cannot be changed – not like here, where we had dozens of versions (some conflicting among themselves) of the Bible. Hundreds of light years away from Virginia Convention or from “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God”. Hundreds of years away from the “wall of separation” of Roger Williams (a priest) or later, Jefferson. This is why they will NEVER reform their states. Not to mention the fact it is enforced with the sword at every step. In Christianity there is the concept of sword as well (Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace, but a sword.”). But it is not used as a violent means to something (only for defensive purposes – at his trial “bring only two swords”), and only to separate “mother from the daughter, son from father” etc. As any sin is an individual sin, not a collective one (a revolutionary concept again, at the time). And here comes individual responsibility in jurisprudence and coutumes. Yakuza and Japanese culture doesn’t understand this at all. They can pass “sins” (in the Old Greek the word for sin is debt) among others, and usually a low tier subaltern pays / takes the punishment for the boss, a habit that is so typical for any collectivist society (and this with ‘honor’ – crazy). This is a very long talk. At the end, I guess we must understand why Marcel Gauchet said “Christianity is the religion to end all other religions”, as it is the exit from dogma, cheap mysticism, forced morals (good by force), collectivism and so on. As all of the concepts we take from granted evolved very hard, but to conclude, we must understand why they happened ONLY in this part of the world. https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10153609756561565    

  • The Antagonists in The Iliad and The Bible: What All Revolutionaries Claim to Be

    Jan 25, 2020, 3:52 PM by Don Miguel All I am pointing out is that there is a big difference in the relations between the protagonists and antogonists of the Illiad and that Bible. The antagonists in the Odyssey, are seen in a rather Satanic light and people utterly without excuse. For many reasons: 1) They are in another’s kingdom and yet do not respect the interests of the King. 2) They have been given many chances to repent to the regents or deputies of the true ruler and yet fail to do so. 3) They treat the kingdom as if it belonged to them who are only guests. Therefore and a day and hour of which only the gods know, there shall be justice severe and eternal when the true rulers return. It’s like LOTR, Robin Hood, the Mahabharata, and the New Testament. The good guys who are the representatives/descendants of the proper rulers are marginalized and vilified by the current usurpers. The current world order of peace and prosperity was created in accordance with natural law, and the signs of this agency are found in the order that we enjoy. But the people who currently rule are not the servants of Natural Law but usurpers. This is what Christians are claimed to be in the Bible as well as what just revolutionaries claim to be.

  • The Antagonists in The Iliad and The Bible: What All Revolutionaries Claim to Be

    Jan 25, 2020, 3:52 PM by Don Miguel All I am pointing out is that there is a big difference in the relations between the protagonists and antogonists of the Illiad and that Bible. The antagonists in the Odyssey, are seen in a rather Satanic light and people utterly without excuse. For many reasons: 1) They are in another’s kingdom and yet do not respect the interests of the King. 2) They have been given many chances to repent to the regents or deputies of the true ruler and yet fail to do so. 3) They treat the kingdom as if it belonged to them who are only guests. Therefore and a day and hour of which only the gods know, there shall be justice severe and eternal when the true rulers return. It’s like LOTR, Robin Hood, the Mahabharata, and the New Testament. The good guys who are the representatives/descendants of the proper rulers are marginalized and vilified by the current usurpers. The current world order of peace and prosperity was created in accordance with natural law, and the signs of this agency are found in the order that we enjoy. But the people who currently rule are not the servants of Natural Law but usurpers. This is what Christians are claimed to be in the Bible as well as what just revolutionaries claim to be.

  • Q: “The End of History”

    Jan 26, 2020, 8:53 AM Q: “THE END OF HISTORY”

    —“What is meant, or what do you mean when you say ‘The end of history’?”—Nicholas Arthur Catton

    The End of History: SPECIFIC The end of history is a political and philosophical concept put forth by Francis Fukuyama that proposes that a particular political, economic, or social system may develop that would constitute the end-point of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government (and that social democracy was that order). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history GENERAL That any given scientific question can be as complete as is chemistry (where chemistry is the most complete of the sciences). RELATING TO P My suspicion is that people will improve on P for a century at which point it will approach chemistry in completeness.

  • Q: “The End of History”

    Jan 26, 2020, 8:53 AM Q: “THE END OF HISTORY”

    —“What is meant, or what do you mean when you say ‘The end of history’?”—Nicholas Arthur Catton

    The End of History: SPECIFIC The end of history is a political and philosophical concept put forth by Francis Fukuyama that proposes that a particular political, economic, or social system may develop that would constitute the end-point of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government (and that social democracy was that order). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history GENERAL That any given scientific question can be as complete as is chemistry (where chemistry is the most complete of the sciences). RELATING TO P My suspicion is that people will improve on P for a century at which point it will approach chemistry in completeness.

  • Choose, A Second Fall of Rome, or The Carthaginian War?

    Choose, A Second Fall of Rome, or The Carthaginian War? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/choose-a-second-fall-of-rome-or-the-carthaginian-war/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:00:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264979738847842304

  • Choose, A Second Fall of Rome, or The Carthaginian War?

    Jan 28, 2020, 11:09 AM (important) (core) 1) So will you go down in history as the second fall of Rome? Or will you go down as Rome defeating Carthage and salting the earth so it can never rise again? 2) I think of racists as solving the obvious problem by the simplest means that they can imagine – but one that easily fails. People’s sensitivity changes under duress. So you must increase duress in order to reduce their tolerance to threats. This is how a general thinks about a strategic problem. Minimum force here, to cause minimum resistance there, for maximum consequence over there, 3) P was purely conservative libertarian. Race based people came to P when I stated that the science is clear that the optimum social order is ethnocentrism, the optimum political order rule of law, and the optimum ethic christian because it is compatible and enhances via negativa natural law into a via-positiva advantage. In P I didn’t even consider race as a motivator. I just stated that if you want a wealthy, competitive, commons producing, highly redistributive, high trust polity that continues the western tradition you need to restore the market for polities with rule of law and many small polities each producing commons needed by that body of people given the differences in our abilities, rates, and depths of maturity and genetic load. 4) If you search my site you will find (a) a decade of my argument stating that conflict is largely one of the primacy of loyalty to kin because of the advantage of kin cooperation, with the problem being differences in class sizes between the races and tribes, with whites and east asians producing the best genetic distribution with the least genetic load (bad genes). And (b) that the primary conflict is one over natural status conflicts given the differing demands for commons – including that of normative behavior – between different groups with different rates and depths of sexual matureity and different class sizes. So my argument was that ending segregation was not only a catastrophic failure, not only destroyed the nascent black middle class leadership, but forced the abandonment of the black underclass. This is not dissimilar to the hispanic-indian-black divide in south america (that like mexico at its core is often still amerindian). 5) I think sh-t thru. So I am aware that all political movements move from the fringe where they depend on very radical very dissatisfied, and often mentally troubled individuals, through ‘generatons’ until they reach enough people to obtain power. I have done the same with P by attacking and undermining the jewish libertarians, then providing a home for the hard right while undermining the swastika ideology and replacing it with the hard science of economics and biology, and I have been working on neutralizing the feminism of the christian right that like women operates under the pretense of needing their approval on their terms, rather than that they need a means of survival and competition in the generations to come but that christianity is scientifically ‘right’ as far as christian ethics – and that I have an answer to the institutionalization of that ethic by embodying it in law. At present john and I together took a gamble last year (and I risked the whole movement) that we could move directly to the revolutionary message, and eventually an anti-left constitutional convention, from there to the certain threat of civil war, while trump was still in office. Right now I think we have to demonstrate (YET AGAIN) that I am right, and that it is with science, reason, evidence, and the law, expressed in our rights to self determination, and to state openly and truthully the superiority of our civilization, and its rescue of man. And that we need to correctly identify the enemy as the financial and political sector. and that the returns on ‘correcting past crimes’ will produce a renaissance not only for our people but for the world and for mankind – or else another dark age. If we do this successfully, there will be no resistance from even the middle, and only resistance from the political and financial sector and hard leftists, and dependent immigrants. How we conduct that war is something I am absolutely confident in and know how to win. It is actually a matter of choosing a strategy from the number I have in my head. All of them will produce such horrific pressure not only on our government but on the rest of the world, that it will be increasingly hard for anyone other than our unwanted immigrants in blue cities and the new mexico-invasion, that to resist the solution. That solution will provide a peaceful transitional means while preserving the strength of the military and the continental defense. Conversely, with resistance we would make a certain union general’s destruction of the south, and isis’ destruction of Syria/Iraq look like a visit from father christmas. (Just one example. What would Mexico do if certain things started happening? What would the largest military base in the states be occupied with? This is how you strategically think about war. Small pressures that create large pressures from elsewhere.) 6) “All who bleed with me will be my brother in war.” After war, we will naturally sort by our kin as all people do when advantageous, and try to ‘associate or mate upward or downward’ to capture better opportunities if the kin group is not in your interest. The objective being obtaining the ability to voluntarily associate or disassociate as our preference demands. So my understanding is that: (a) all of us who want to be left alone so to speak to build a middle class majority polity will get a long just fine as long as we can separate into polities or neighborhoods; (b) if we limit our political order to those people wanting a middle class majority polity, then the racial differences will largely ameliorate because most differences that cause conflict are the difference in class sizes between the races on the one hand, and the group strategy of other tribes, races, sub-races being destructive on the other. (c) therefore given the vast demographic differences between the races we would end up with a very white polity with minorities, all whom agree to rule of law, and all whom operate under rule of law. And if we can produce commons suitable to our kin we will be fine. I suspect that over time we will re-sort into small nation states if only to limit competition. (d) the only problem then is really eliminating falsehood and irreciprocity and letting market forces do their thing., Why? We (and some east asians) appear to be the only people who can do it. We could have fixed this politically in 92 at the latest. Now we have to fix it militarily, and this is our last chance to do it before the second fall of the roman empire. So will you go down in history as the second fall of Rome? Or will you go down as Rome defeating Carthage and salting the earth so it can never rise again?

  • Choose, A Second Fall of Rome, or The Carthaginian War?

    Jan 28, 2020, 11:09 AM (important) (core) 1) So will you go down in history as the second fall of Rome? Or will you go down as Rome defeating Carthage and salting the earth so it can never rise again? 2) I think of racists as solving the obvious problem by the simplest means that they can imagine – but one that easily fails. People’s sensitivity changes under duress. So you must increase duress in order to reduce their tolerance to threats. This is how a general thinks about a strategic problem. Minimum force here, to cause minimum resistance there, for maximum consequence over there, 3) P was purely conservative libertarian. Race based people came to P when I stated that the science is clear that the optimum social order is ethnocentrism, the optimum political order rule of law, and the optimum ethic christian because it is compatible and enhances via negativa natural law into a via-positiva advantage. In P I didn’t even consider race as a motivator. I just stated that if you want a wealthy, competitive, commons producing, highly redistributive, high trust polity that continues the western tradition you need to restore the market for polities with rule of law and many small polities each producing commons needed by that body of people given the differences in our abilities, rates, and depths of maturity and genetic load. 4) If you search my site you will find (a) a decade of my argument stating that conflict is largely one of the primacy of loyalty to kin because of the advantage of kin cooperation, with the problem being differences in class sizes between the races and tribes, with whites and east asians producing the best genetic distribution with the least genetic load (bad genes). And (b) that the primary conflict is one over natural status conflicts given the differing demands for commons – including that of normative behavior – between different groups with different rates and depths of sexual matureity and different class sizes. So my argument was that ending segregation was not only a catastrophic failure, not only destroyed the nascent black middle class leadership, but forced the abandonment of the black underclass. This is not dissimilar to the hispanic-indian-black divide in south america (that like mexico at its core is often still amerindian). 5) I think sh-t thru. So I am aware that all political movements move from the fringe where they depend on very radical very dissatisfied, and often mentally troubled individuals, through ‘generatons’ until they reach enough people to obtain power. I have done the same with P by attacking and undermining the jewish libertarians, then providing a home for the hard right while undermining the swastika ideology and replacing it with the hard science of economics and biology, and I have been working on neutralizing the feminism of the christian right that like women operates under the pretense of needing their approval on their terms, rather than that they need a means of survival and competition in the generations to come but that christianity is scientifically ‘right’ as far as christian ethics – and that I have an answer to the institutionalization of that ethic by embodying it in law. At present john and I together took a gamble last year (and I risked the whole movement) that we could move directly to the revolutionary message, and eventually an anti-left constitutional convention, from there to the certain threat of civil war, while trump was still in office. Right now I think we have to demonstrate (YET AGAIN) that I am right, and that it is with science, reason, evidence, and the law, expressed in our rights to self determination, and to state openly and truthully the superiority of our civilization, and its rescue of man. And that we need to correctly identify the enemy as the financial and political sector. and that the returns on ‘correcting past crimes’ will produce a renaissance not only for our people but for the world and for mankind – or else another dark age. If we do this successfully, there will be no resistance from even the middle, and only resistance from the political and financial sector and hard leftists, and dependent immigrants. How we conduct that war is something I am absolutely confident in and know how to win. It is actually a matter of choosing a strategy from the number I have in my head. All of them will produce such horrific pressure not only on our government but on the rest of the world, that it will be increasingly hard for anyone other than our unwanted immigrants in blue cities and the new mexico-invasion, that to resist the solution. That solution will provide a peaceful transitional means while preserving the strength of the military and the continental defense. Conversely, with resistance we would make a certain union general’s destruction of the south, and isis’ destruction of Syria/Iraq look like a visit from father christmas. (Just one example. What would Mexico do if certain things started happening? What would the largest military base in the states be occupied with? This is how you strategically think about war. Small pressures that create large pressures from elsewhere.) 6) “All who bleed with me will be my brother in war.” After war, we will naturally sort by our kin as all people do when advantageous, and try to ‘associate or mate upward or downward’ to capture better opportunities if the kin group is not in your interest. The objective being obtaining the ability to voluntarily associate or disassociate as our preference demands. So my understanding is that: (a) all of us who want to be left alone so to speak to build a middle class majority polity will get a long just fine as long as we can separate into polities or neighborhoods; (b) if we limit our political order to those people wanting a middle class majority polity, then the racial differences will largely ameliorate because most differences that cause conflict are the difference in class sizes between the races on the one hand, and the group strategy of other tribes, races, sub-races being destructive on the other. (c) therefore given the vast demographic differences between the races we would end up with a very white polity with minorities, all whom agree to rule of law, and all whom operate under rule of law. And if we can produce commons suitable to our kin we will be fine. I suspect that over time we will re-sort into small nation states if only to limit competition. (d) the only problem then is really eliminating falsehood and irreciprocity and letting market forces do their thing., Why? We (and some east asians) appear to be the only people who can do it. We could have fixed this politically in 92 at the latest. Now we have to fix it militarily, and this is our last chance to do it before the second fall of the roman empire. So will you go down in history as the second fall of Rome? Or will you go down as Rome defeating Carthage and salting the earth so it can never rise again?

  • A Costly Means of Obtaining Immortality

    Jan 30, 2020, 10:37 AM A life of solving this category of thought: civilizational crisis – requires we forgo most other forms of consumption into a stoic, epicurean, and spartan devotion of our lives exclusively to calculation by means of internal interpersonal and group argument: evolution by survival from competition. It is a costly means of obtaining immortality. But it is one of the only means of doing so. 😉 And once you transcend the animal it is one of the most rewarding.