Organizing a Movement https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/organizing-a-movement/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 14:34:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232312920224272385
Organizing a Movement https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/organizing-a-movement/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 14:34:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232312920224272385
—“We need Organization. There are people everywhere that will feel refreshed after learning this all and jump right on.”—Jeff Carlson
We will create a political party as the means of organizing The other ‘organizations’ will follow. If we have organic growth we create three wings: educational, political, and militial. If we have time we take the IRA strategy of two wings: political and militial. If we run out of time, we resort to Mao’s strategy of a single wing Political-Militial. In all cases we need a political organization since the world is currently organized to facilitate them and the publicity is free. But it’s time dependent.
—“We need Organization. There are people everywhere that will feel refreshed after learning this all and jump right on.”—Jeff Carlson
We will create a political party as the means of organizing The other ‘organizations’ will follow. If we have organic growth we create three wings: educational, political, and militial. If we have time we take the IRA strategy of two wings: political and militial. If we run out of time, we resort to Mao’s strategy of a single wing Political-Militial. In all cases we need a political organization since the world is currently organized to facilitate them and the publicity is free. But it’s time dependent.
—“In the same way libertarians rally about welfare bad actors in terms of economics, libertarians are “welfare queens” in the sense that they want all the trappings of a high trust society and commons without their own participation in it. They’re Just welfare queens of the flip side of the coin.”—Zachary Bert
Robert Danis That’s why I stopped becoming a libertarian you have to have some type of restrictions but you don’t need odorous laws like we have today and are trying to be created. Mikey Lirón Altho there certainly after Libertarians who feel entitled to things and not have to pay for them Adam Jacob Robert Walker Mikey Lirón A slave contributes to the wishes of his master, obligated by threat of violence or harm. He contributes for his own survival. A slave eats food in order to survive and surviving means enduring slavery. A slave has no choice other than to hope for an early death, opportunity for suicide, or chance to revolt and gain his freedom. “This is no endorsement of it, nor is it an acceptance of obligation to contribute.” This is the point the OP is making. Libertarians don’t contribute or accept the obligation to contribute when granted liberty. They do this by using the NAP (half truth) as an excuse to free ride and not contribute to the commons. Curt’s question gets at the heart of it. What choice do you have? What incentive do sovereigns (those with a monopoly on violent coercion ie govt) have to grant you liberty if you don’t respect the commons created by those who granted it to you? Curt Doolittle Why should those of with numbers, capital, and territorial control, let you live? Abigail Elizabeth The Libertarians who agree to contribute to and respect the commons are probably Propertarians who just don’t know it yet. 😉
—“In the same way libertarians rally about welfare bad actors in terms of economics, libertarians are “welfare queens” in the sense that they want all the trappings of a high trust society and commons without their own participation in it. They’re Just welfare queens of the flip side of the coin.”—Zachary Bert
Robert Danis That’s why I stopped becoming a libertarian you have to have some type of restrictions but you don’t need odorous laws like we have today and are trying to be created. Mikey Lirón Altho there certainly after Libertarians who feel entitled to things and not have to pay for them Adam Jacob Robert Walker Mikey Lirón A slave contributes to the wishes of his master, obligated by threat of violence or harm. He contributes for his own survival. A slave eats food in order to survive and surviving means enduring slavery. A slave has no choice other than to hope for an early death, opportunity for suicide, or chance to revolt and gain his freedom. “This is no endorsement of it, nor is it an acceptance of obligation to contribute.” This is the point the OP is making. Libertarians don’t contribute or accept the obligation to contribute when granted liberty. They do this by using the NAP (half truth) as an excuse to free ride and not contribute to the commons. Curt’s question gets at the heart of it. What choice do you have? What incentive do sovereigns (those with a monopoly on violent coercion ie govt) have to grant you liberty if you don’t respect the commons created by those who granted it to you? Curt Doolittle Why should those of with numbers, capital, and territorial control, let you live? Abigail Elizabeth The Libertarians who agree to contribute to and respect the commons are probably Propertarians who just don’t know it yet. 😉
No one is coming to save you or us.
Either men show up to save themselves.
Or they don’t.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 20:22:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232038160315699205
Reply addressees: @StandUniteFight @StefanMolyneux
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232037996213493761
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@StandUniteFight @StefanMolyneux The 1% turns out to be a lot of people over time. There are however, a large number of people in the financial, state, academy, media and entertainment sectors that share common interests in ‘managed decline’ of our civilization. And a small number of internationalists doing it.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232037996213493761
ETHNOCENTRISM, SOVEREIGNTY: RULE OF LAW – ITS ENOUGH.
The Via- Positiva
Small, homogenous, low power distance, polities under rule of law, and their naturally limited capacity for fiat currency inflation demonstrate the optimum mixed economies for both trade and redistribution.
The optimum organization of such a polity is by Sovereignty, Rule of law of Reciprocity, an independent cult of the judiciary, a universal militia, a standing professional army of warriors, a monarchy as a judge of last resort, houses for the classes demonstrating contribution to the commons for the production of commons. And markets in everything.
Ethnocentrism is the optimum group strategy because kin selection favors – or at least doesn’t resist – loyalty, high trust, commons, and redistribution.
Ethno-supremacism is a necessary property of ethnocentrism.
Europeans are demonstrably superior genetically, culturally, scientifically, medically, technologically, institutionally, civilizationally to all other civilizations in the ancient and modern worlds.
And we are so for one reason: sovereignty. Everything in our civilization descends from it.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 10:55:00 UTC
—“Organization is the key. There are people everywhere that will feel refreshed after learning this all and jump right on.”—Jeff Carlson
We will create a political party as the means of organizing
The other ‘organizations’ will follow.
( If we have time we take the IRA strategy of two wings, if we run out of time, we resort to Mao’s strategy of a single wing. In both cases we need a political organization since the world is currently organized to facilitate them and the publicity is free.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 22:23:00 UTC
—“The Democrat elites are pissed about him coming out as a socialist publicly ruining all those years of patient incrementalism.”—Tyson Bay
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 16:13:00 UTC
TRY TO UNDERSTAND MY STRATEGY….
I really don’t want to be more popular. I want P to be popular. I want US to be popular as a movement. John is doing a great job. the first generation of guys is now frighteningly competent. We have new a new guys that are doing a good job. The more it’s about ‘me’ the less it’s about ‘us’ and I want P to be about US not me. They can Alinsky-me. They can’t alinsky all of us.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 15:13:00 UTC