Theme: Governance

  • very interesting article about 4th generation warfare and scenarios for Europe a

    https://ammo.com/articles/asymmetrical-warfare-4gw-americas-domestic-viet-cong?fbclid=IwAR2Zjn2HrkIWcyansYY-dv1qTeM2E9uW66Oy4AzGuGq6m6eV8RU3aVg8s5g—“A very interesting article about 4th generation warfare and scenarios for Europe and the US. Worth a read.”—Liberty Machine News

    https://ammo.com/articles/asymmetrical-warfare-4gw-americas-domestic-viet-cong


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 09:22:00 UTC

  • DOCTRINE OF FASCISM (via @[100010386694913:2048:Richard Heathen] ) “Or ‘you don’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_FascismTHE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

    (via @[100010386694913:2048:Richard Heathen] )

    “Or ‘you don’t know it, but you’re a fascist – and it’s a good thing” Fascism advocates the organization of the state in the interests of the nation (people, race).

    Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism

    The Essay:

    http://library.flawlesslogic.com/fascism.htm

    Overview

    “The Doctrine of Fascism” (Italian: “La dottrina del fascismo”) is an essay attributed to Benito Mussolini. In truth, the first part of the essay, entitled “Idee Fondamentali” (Italian for “Fundamental Ideas”) was written by philosopher Giovanni Gentile, while only the second part (“Dottrina politica e sociale”) is the work of Mussolini himself.

    It was first published in the Enciclopedia Italiana of 1932, as the first section of a lengthy entry on “Fascismo” (Italian for Fascism).

    The entire entry on Fascism spans pages 847–884 of the Enciclopedia Italiana, and includes numerous photographs and graphic images. The Mussolini entry starts on page 847 and ends on 851 with the credit line “Benito Mussolini.” All subsequent translations of “The Doctrine of Fascism” are from this work.

    A key concept of the Mussolini essay was that fascism was a rejection of previous models: “Granted that the 19th century was the century of marxism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of marxism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the Right, a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State.”


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 09:12:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53439770_10157032235317264_607085794

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53439770_10157032235317264_6070857949872390144_n_10157032235312264.jpg PATCH STRATEGY: UNITY

    1. THE NATURAL LAW

    2. THE RELIGION

    3. THE NATIONJWarren PrescottI like the Knights of natural law and the impending, unforeseen consequences of a black swan. It’s like an open threat 😁Mar 6, 2019, 2:59 PMJWarren PrescottI wonder if Hugo Boss would still accept a commission for uniforms… 😁Mar 6, 2019, 3:04 PMEamon O’NeillMeh for the St George’s Cross in Europes. Could he solved with making one with erins harp for Ireland. 😂Mar 6, 2019, 3:19 PMAndy Ujku-DardaniaWhat is the significance of the Black Swan?Mar 6, 2019, 3:22 PMMartin ŠtěpánOriginally from Hume. You can’t ever say black swans don’t exist just because you’ve never seen one. You’d have to be certain that you’ve seen every single swan. Funnily enough, black swans have actually been found later.

    Black swan event is the one you don’t believe could realistically arise. And then it does.Mar 6, 2019, 3:49 PMIvar Diederik(If you’re going to have actual badges printed, move the S a little to the right, so that it doesn’t touch the outer circle.)Mar 6, 2019, 4:14 PMZach QuarryOh yeah!!! How do I get both?Mar 6, 2019, 7:01 PMMark Di RussoShardMar 6, 2019, 8:56 PMTom BielerPVC with Velcro pleaseMar 6, 2019, 9:40 PMFrancesco PrincipiI prefer “Unus sid leo” (Esopo)Mar 7, 2019, 7:51 AMCurt DoolittleFixed. Thank you for catching it. The “S” was the wrong font size.Mar 7, 2019, 9:51 AMPATCH STRATEGY: UNITY

    1. THE NATURAL LAW

    2. THE RELIGION

    3. THE NATION


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-06 14:39:00 UTC

  • by Rosenborg Predmetsky Something I’ve been considering: A forceful imposition o

    by Rosenborg Predmetsky

    Something I’ve been considering: A forceful imposition of obscenity laws that criminalizes and censors pornography and public display of sexually arousing material, because the catastrophic psychological insecurity created in women by such media is precisely what motivates them to so profoundly resent men that they engage in their sociopathic revaluation of values that privileges the morbidly obese, the ugly, the mutilated, the masculinized, etc.

    Men exist not only to protect women from other men, but also from the ruthlessness of intra-sexual competition between women, and we protect women from other women, because the female underclass lashes out at males when they are made to feel worthless.

    Women have a need to be desired, seen and recognized, and being sexually desirable is one of their main means of doing so. On the one hand, the unnatural supra-normal stimulus generated by the ubiquity of fattening food and a sedentary lifestyle, has caused women to become monstrously ugly, and on the other hand, totally unrealistic portrayals of female beauty causes even the more attractive women to be extremely insecure. So the situation we’re in is *profoundly* unnatural.

    Women need to test men to feel safe and desired, to test their loyalty and desire. But they can never feel safe or desired in our current context, and their reaction to this despair is the kind of despairing rage that is the rough equivalent of a mass incel shooting among men. I think even 2nd wave feminists are actually on to something when they argue that women shouldn’t have to shave their bodies or face.

    Some women will complain that men are stifling their sexual expression. And they are right. But men need to learn to say “no” to women. Cultivating a healthy limiting impulse would lead to much happier men and women alike. Patriarchy, properly understood and implemented, is a necessary precondition for a healthy society because female sexuality is always already as aggressive and dominating as men, just in different ways.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-06 10:42:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255506/Monumental-deceit-How-politicians-lied-lied-true-purpose-European-behemoth.html


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-06 10:10:00 UTC

  • ON THE COMING CIVIL WAR

    https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/national/bernstein-us-in-a-cold-civil-war-trump-may-ignite/video_b6236bb1-51ca-52cc-8719-e29757fbcb42.htmlBERNSTEIN ON THE COMING CIVIL WAR


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-05 13:03:00 UTC

  • If you’re a member. Vote for Prop. 😉

    If you’re a member. Vote for Prop. 😉

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/198567587146349/permalink/784937938509308/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 12:51:00 UTC

  • TERRITORIAL DIFFERENCES POST THREE ON POLITICAL THEORY Apr 25, 2016, 12:35 PM Wh

    TERRITORIAL DIFFERENCES POST THREE

    ON POLITICAL THEORY

    Apr 25, 2016, 12:35 PM

    What are the first things one should know in political theory?

    1. The first question of **ethics** is ‘Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’.

    2. The first question of **politics** is “Why don’t me and mine kill you and yours and take your stuff?”

    3. The first question of **group evolutionary strategy** is “How can we either kill them and take their stuff, or prevent them from killing us and taking our stuff?”

    4. The answer to all three questions is the same: “Because **cooperating in a division of labor **is productive and can continue to produce mutual returns while conflict is costly and and results only in net consumption. Over time those who cooperate have more numbers, are healthier, have better industry, technology, and warfare than those who don’t.

    5. So, how do we **organize** group evolutionary strategy, politics, ethics, production and reproduction, so that we can out-compete, or at least say at pace with, competitors, given the people, their abilities, the territory and its resources that are at our disposal?

    6. Answering this question requires facing a very **unpleasant fac****t**, that the problem we face is** human capital **(talents) and that every person at the bottom of the curve drastically reduces the effectiveness of every person at the middle and top of the curve. In other words, it matters more that you don’t have impulsive, aggressive, idiots than it does that you have calm geniuses. So by and large nations in colder climates were more successful at killing off the undesirables through winters and starvation, than those in the warmer climates.

    7. So we see many different group evolutionary strategies dependent upon human capital, territory, and resources. The most obvious are

    * the hierarchical and authoritarian irrigated flood-river valleys

    * the aggressive tribal steppe and desert regions

    * the egalitarian forest and river regions.

    * the equalitarian polar peoples

    * Each of these main groups produce different political systems in order to make use of the territory and means of production available to them. Those that do not make good use of territory and means are displaced, conquered, or exterminated by those that do.

    * All groups require:

    * A method of organizing reproduction (usually marriage)

    * A method of organizing production (an economy)

    * A method of organizing norms (usually religion/education)

    * A method of producing commons (government)

    * A method of holding territory (army)

    * There are two economic poles available and all make use of one part of the spectrum or another, and all economies resulting in some variant on the mixed economy:

    * Propertarian / Libertarian / **Capitalist** / High Trust / High Innovation – Why? No corruption in theory. Incentives work. But no competitive commons are produced, so it doesn’t work.

    * **Mixed Economy** of Consumer capitalism with some authoritarian commons production. Incentives work and commons possible.

    * Authoritarian / Totalitarian / **Socialist** / Low Trust / Low Innovation – Why? high corruption, no incentives, and it doesn’t work.

    * All governments are corrupt but if a people are successful at implementing rule of law it is possible to protect the economy using the courts from excessive interference by the government monopoly.

    * The method of deciding ( making excuses for ) which commons is produced rather than some other commons is a matter of local dispute. But it is actually a question of competition with other states, and it is only very wealthy states that choose luxuries rather than necessities.

    * That is about all there is to political theory.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 12:48:00 UTC

  • We will go mainstream. And the truth is the whackjob right is a liability to us

    We will go mainstream. And the truth is the whackjob right is a liability to us.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 00:34:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102366767807123456

    Reply addressees: @camelback_t

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102364988163936256


    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/1102364988163936256

  • You don’t get it. You don’t matter. What matters is the majority that want possi

    You don’t get it. You don’t matter. What matters is the majority that want possible implementable solutions that solve the problem of present conflict. The ‘fringe’ is meaningless.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 00:25:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102364434738102272

    Reply addressees: @camelback_t

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102363649425977344


    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/1102363649425977344