I am on my side. I am on my kin’s side I am on my extended kin’s side I am on my civilization’s side. Truth happens to be the weapon of choice in this battle, because it lets us build commons and compete via commons against those that cannot compete via commons. And because it is by cunning deceits sold to women and the underclass that we have been defeated in the ancient and modern worlds. I considered myself a classical liberal. I had the constitution and declaration and a map of the world on my bedroom walls, and a set of encyclopedias under that map. I stared at them a lot. Not romantically, and not ideologically, but in the context of what I learned from those and other encyclopedias. I considered my self a libertarian (a hayekian classical liberal) when I believed in the potential of mankind.. And current events have made me understand that such a fantasy was the product of european eugenics, and that the rest of humanity except for perhaps the Japanese and koreans is are still but animals, and we we must protect ourselves and our generations from them. I love sovereignty and will pay for it with my life. I love liberty for those who can pay for it. I love freedom for those who can wield it. For the rest, the best we can do is prevent them from harming us, our people, our civilization, and this planet.
Theme: Ethnoculture
-
Whose Side Are You On?
I am on my side. I am on my kin’s side I am on my extended kin’s side I am on my civilization’s side. Truth happens to be the weapon of choice in this battle, because it lets us build commons and compete via commons against those that cannot compete via commons. And because it is by cunning deceits sold to women and the underclass that we have been defeated in the ancient and modern worlds. I considered myself a classical liberal. I had the constitution and declaration and a map of the world on my bedroom walls, and a set of encyclopedias under that map. I stared at them a lot. Not romantically, and not ideologically, but in the context of what I learned from those and other encyclopedias. I considered my self a libertarian (a hayekian classical liberal) when I believed in the potential of mankind.. And current events have made me understand that such a fantasy was the product of european eugenics, and that the rest of humanity except for perhaps the Japanese and koreans is are still but animals, and we we must protect ourselves and our generations from them. I love sovereignty and will pay for it with my life. I love liberty for those who can pay for it. I love freedom for those who can wield it. For the rest, the best we can do is prevent them from harming us, our people, our civilization, and this planet.
-
Our Era in the Context of the Enlightenments: the Restoration of Europa From Semitic and Iranian Influence (deceits).
The enlightenment succeeded in the physical sciences, but not in the social sciences, and we can see the german, french, russian, jewish, chinese reactions as social counter-enlightenments. What seems to have been under development in the 1800’s in Germany was the second scientific enlightenment (which benefitted the USA mostly), and the second attempt at social scientific revolution. Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Weber/Pareto/Durkheim, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, Popper(science), Hayek (law) all came very close, and Weber, Mises, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman actually independently came to about the same conclusion, but they could not succeed against the pseudoscientific marxists and keynesians, just as the enlightenment philosophers could not succeed against the church and state. We can succeed. Because we have cognitive science, the record of the failure of keynesian economics, the record of the failure of communism, socialism, social democracy and the record of failure of rousseauian and lockeian man. The world merely needs the answer that the first scientific enlightenment, the second failed enlightenment (german) and the american post-german attempt failed to produce. Social science = natural law = reciprocity and the unit of measure = property.
-
Our Era in the Context of the Enlightenments: the Restoration of Europa From Semitic and Iranian Influence (deceits).
The enlightenment succeeded in the physical sciences, but not in the social sciences, and we can see the german, french, russian, jewish, chinese reactions as social counter-enlightenments. What seems to have been under development in the 1800’s in Germany was the second scientific enlightenment (which benefitted the USA mostly), and the second attempt at social scientific revolution. Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Weber/Pareto/Durkheim, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, Popper(science), Hayek (law) all came very close, and Weber, Mises, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman actually independently came to about the same conclusion, but they could not succeed against the pseudoscientific marxists and keynesians, just as the enlightenment philosophers could not succeed against the church and state. We can succeed. Because we have cognitive science, the record of the failure of keynesian economics, the record of the failure of communism, socialism, social democracy and the record of failure of rousseauian and lockeian man. The world merely needs the answer that the first scientific enlightenment, the second failed enlightenment (german) and the american post-german attempt failed to produce. Social science = natural law = reciprocity and the unit of measure = property.
-
There Are No Propertarian Objections to White Nationalism – or Any Other Nationalism
(controversial)(read it all before you jump to conclusions) Assuming it’s under our ancient group evolutionary strategy (sovereignty), and under our ancient law (rule of natural law of sovereigns), and where we produce commons by a market between the classes (multi-house-government), where we use an intergenerational judge of last resort (hereditary monarchy), and where all those with enfranchisement are trained to, and fight in a militia. (I call this market fascism). But to just separately bring white people together again, say under communism, is not to restore white civilization. And without our civilization we are nothing. I advocate that all peoples of the world adopt nationalism and the white civilizational strategy. Not just us. In fact, I have no problem demanding it at the point of a gun. Fascism for war and intentional reordering of the economy, Market fascism for when we are not at war. And that’s about as difficult as it gets. Curt
-
There Are No Propertarian Objections to White Nationalism – or Any Other Nationalism
(controversial)(read it all before you jump to conclusions) Assuming it’s under our ancient group evolutionary strategy (sovereignty), and under our ancient law (rule of natural law of sovereigns), and where we produce commons by a market between the classes (multi-house-government), where we use an intergenerational judge of last resort (hereditary monarchy), and where all those with enfranchisement are trained to, and fight in a militia. (I call this market fascism). But to just separately bring white people together again, say under communism, is not to restore white civilization. And without our civilization we are nothing. I advocate that all peoples of the world adopt nationalism and the white civilizational strategy. Not just us. In fact, I have no problem demanding it at the point of a gun. Fascism for war and intentional reordering of the economy, Market fascism for when we are not at war. And that’s about as difficult as it gets. Curt
-
Regarding Nietzsche’s Positive Statements About Persians
um. well, I think we have to keep in mind, that Nietzsche is a literary and aesthetic philosopher, not a mathematical, legal, or political one. He is trying to restore our civilization’s aesthetic from its debasement by christianity. But he holds no appreciation for (or from what I gather, understanding of) math, law, economics, and politics – all of which are forms of measurement. And so, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And he seems to think that it’s the literature that causes the culture, rather than the group evolutionary strategy, and the institutions the group puts in place, and that literature JUSTIFIES that strategy and institution – it does not CREATE it unless we forcibly indoctrinate people into it. The Persians were WEALTHIER than the greeks. Of course there will be aspects of the wealthier people to admire. But the evidence is that the greeks were militarily, economically, and institutionally, and culturally,and intellectual superior to the Persians. The question we have to ask is why were the greeks superior to the Persians, and the romans superior to the greeks and to the carthaginians? If one views the supernatural writings of the Persians and semites, the platonic writings of the greeks, and the legal, political, and stoic writings of the romans, we obtain a clue. If we view the economy of the Persians, the greeks, and the romans we obtain another clue. If we view the political order of the Persians, the greeks, the carthaginians, and the romans, we get another clue. Now, christianity was successful in most part because (a) the plagues, (b) the slave economy, (c) the barbarian invasions, (d) the comparative wealth of the fertile crescent vs the european territories, (e) the dependence of rome upon maintaining control of trade routes and food supplies in remote areas (f) the conquest of decimated western rome by the greek romans (byzantines), (g) and the conquest of the byzantines by the muslims just as the barbarians had defeated rome. Lying is cheap and christianity is lying. The only way that small poorer numbers in the west can compete is the way Aryans always competed: using advanced technology, professional warriors, and agility ( ooda-loops) to out-maneuver (decide FASTER) to defeat enemies dependent upon slave soldiers, large numbers, and central rule. The only people to develop truth, reason, and pre-science were the greeks. And the only people to develop natural law were the romans. The only people to create the scientific revolution were the europeans. And the only thing that seems to have been an impediment is the lies created by zoroaster, spread by the persians to the semites then to the europeans. So unlike Nietzche, I see the greeks as rebels against persian mysticism, I see the romans rebels against greek platonism, and I see the church as existing only because it was a government imposed by conquest on a people exhausted from immigration of barbarians, invasion by barbarians, and decimated by plague. THere are indeed people who are moved by the occult, by the divine/supernatural, by myth, by literature, by history. But they can choose what they are moved by. Law is not a choice, it is required, and it doesn’t require belief in anything. Economics do not require belief, or agreement. They merely exist by force of law. And law by force of violence. Nietzche, good christian, and good german, as he was – informed by literature, trying to escape its prison, saw only literature as cause – not as justification for incentives. Not as justification of priors. Not as the heroism of institutions whose origins and strategy are long forgotten.
-
Regarding Nietzsche’s Positive Statements About Persians
um. well, I think we have to keep in mind, that Nietzsche is a literary and aesthetic philosopher, not a mathematical, legal, or political one. He is trying to restore our civilization’s aesthetic from its debasement by christianity. But he holds no appreciation for (or from what I gather, understanding of) math, law, economics, and politics – all of which are forms of measurement. And so, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And he seems to think that it’s the literature that causes the culture, rather than the group evolutionary strategy, and the institutions the group puts in place, and that literature JUSTIFIES that strategy and institution – it does not CREATE it unless we forcibly indoctrinate people into it. The Persians were WEALTHIER than the greeks. Of course there will be aspects of the wealthier people to admire. But the evidence is that the greeks were militarily, economically, and institutionally, and culturally,and intellectual superior to the Persians. The question we have to ask is why were the greeks superior to the Persians, and the romans superior to the greeks and to the carthaginians? If one views the supernatural writings of the Persians and semites, the platonic writings of the greeks, and the legal, political, and stoic writings of the romans, we obtain a clue. If we view the economy of the Persians, the greeks, and the romans we obtain another clue. If we view the political order of the Persians, the greeks, the carthaginians, and the romans, we get another clue. Now, christianity was successful in most part because (a) the plagues, (b) the slave economy, (c) the barbarian invasions, (d) the comparative wealth of the fertile crescent vs the european territories, (e) the dependence of rome upon maintaining control of trade routes and food supplies in remote areas (f) the conquest of decimated western rome by the greek romans (byzantines), (g) and the conquest of the byzantines by the muslims just as the barbarians had defeated rome. Lying is cheap and christianity is lying. The only way that small poorer numbers in the west can compete is the way Aryans always competed: using advanced technology, professional warriors, and agility ( ooda-loops) to out-maneuver (decide FASTER) to defeat enemies dependent upon slave soldiers, large numbers, and central rule. The only people to develop truth, reason, and pre-science were the greeks. And the only people to develop natural law were the romans. The only people to create the scientific revolution were the europeans. And the only thing that seems to have been an impediment is the lies created by zoroaster, spread by the persians to the semites then to the europeans. So unlike Nietzche, I see the greeks as rebels against persian mysticism, I see the romans rebels against greek platonism, and I see the church as existing only because it was a government imposed by conquest on a people exhausted from immigration of barbarians, invasion by barbarians, and decimated by plague. THere are indeed people who are moved by the occult, by the divine/supernatural, by myth, by literature, by history. But they can choose what they are moved by. Law is not a choice, it is required, and it doesn’t require belief in anything. Economics do not require belief, or agreement. They merely exist by force of law. And law by force of violence. Nietzche, good christian, and good german, as he was – informed by literature, trying to escape its prison, saw only literature as cause – not as justification for incentives. Not as justification of priors. Not as the heroism of institutions whose origins and strategy are long forgotten.
-
The Devolution Of The American Experiment In Eugenic Civilization Through Immigration
1) The english immigrants were germanic, and were eugenicists before the term was coined. 2) the german immigrants improved on the english, by increasing the numbers of germanic peoples 3) the scotts irish at least held onto our traditions. 4) the consequences of the potato-famine irish and catholic were severe (see New England) 5) the consequences of the italians were worse (see NE/NJ) 6) the consequences of the (eastern) jews were the worst of all. 7) the destruction of the souther black agrarian family was the tipping point. 8) the invasion by the Caribbeans, south Americans (Mestizos), and Muslims has been catastrophic. And now we are at civil war. How can we measure these things? In effect on law. Who caused it? Look at THE DATA. Women + Catholics. Whose idea was it? Jews.
-
The Devolution Of The American Experiment In Eugenic Civilization Through Immigration
1) The english immigrants were germanic, and were eugenicists before the term was coined. 2) the german immigrants improved on the english, by increasing the numbers of germanic peoples 3) the scotts irish at least held onto our traditions. 4) the consequences of the potato-famine irish and catholic were severe (see New England) 5) the consequences of the italians were worse (see NE/NJ) 6) the consequences of the (eastern) jews were the worst of all. 7) the destruction of the souther black agrarian family was the tipping point. 8) the invasion by the Caribbeans, south Americans (Mestizos), and Muslims has been catastrophic. And now we are at civil war. How can we measure these things? In effect on law. Who caused it? Look at THE DATA. Women + Catholics. Whose idea was it? Jews.