https://nypost.com/2018/06/15/duterte-wants-to-give-the-public-42000-free-guns/https://nypost.com/2018/06/15/duterte-wants-to-give-the-public-42000-free-guns/
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 20:17:00 UTC
Theme: Governance
-
WEALTH PERMITS CHOICE AND WE CHOOSE SEPARATISM. You may choose whatever you want
WEALTH PERMITS CHOICE AND WE CHOOSE SEPARATISM.
You may choose whatever you want once we are separated. Otherwise the only solution is war.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 18:31:00 UTC
-
WARRIORS AND TONGUE WAGGERS LIBER-TINE/TARIAN-ISM IS DEAD – IT WAS ALWAYS A LIE
WARRIORS AND TONGUE WAGGERS LIBER-TINE/TARIAN-ISM IS DEAD – IT WAS ALWAYS A LIE
Libertarians (libertines) and ancaps are statistically irrelevant. Predisposed to tongue wagging and not to violence necessary to impose rule of law. So the issue here is that libertinism (rothbardianism, ancapism) is dead. And that classical liberalism is largely dead. And that all that can be learned from the failures of the past 350 years, is that markets-in-everything mean that we should have given additional houses to additional classes as they became participatory, and preserved the houses as a market for commons between the classes, and likewise prohibited the production of law (legislation), only contract between the classes under usual contractual terms.
We had the perfect government with the Scandianvian and germanic monarchies under sovereignty (rule of law of reciprocity, universal standing, and universal applicability), with the monarch as the judge of last resort, and able to dispense with bureaucracies or the government at a whim.
THIS MEANS LIBERTARIANISM IN ALL FORMS WAS ALWAYS A LIE…… Both anglo (classical liberal) and jewish (libertine) were both lies. There is only one law and only one means of imposing it: the organized violence of enough men that the state cannot withstand their revolt.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 18:23:00 UTC
-
CONSERVATIVES (ARISTOCRACY) WERE FROZEN IN ANCIENT ARGUMENT THE NEW RIGHT IS THE
CONSERVATIVES (ARISTOCRACY) WERE FROZEN IN ANCIENT ARGUMENT
THE NEW RIGHT IS THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT
Conservatives were stuck with a moral, religious, traditional set of arguments without themselves understanding why our civilization had ‘sped faster than the rest’. Worse, they bought into the lie just as libertarians bought into the lie of an aristocracy (sovereignty) of everyone.
THE NEW RIGHT = SCIENTIFIC RIGHT. The alt right uses ridicule, but by and large the new right differs from the old right in that we now have DATA and we have it from a century of failures with the falsehoods of classical liberalism, and the falsehoods of marxist-postmodernism.
My work is just going back to our roots: impose the law with violence and incrementally suppress all transgressions of it. Men will naturally insure kin, so create nation states, or at least small local polities in the Swiss model with federal governments providing only reciprocal decidability over inter-state conflicts, and acting as insurer of last resort.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 18:23:00 UTC
-
End the 19th. Never Open the Box Again…
. I am, unfortunately, firmly convinced, that women vote for whomever they are least not attracted to – and like everything else, merely justify it. Those who vote by party, vote economically. Pandora was the horror the ancients warned us of. Never repeat the error of enfranchisement of women again, outside the scope of home and children.
-
End the 19th. Never Open the Box Again…
. I am, unfortunately, firmly convinced, that women vote for whomever they are least not attracted to – and like everything else, merely justify it. Those who vote by party, vote economically. Pandora was the horror the ancients warned us of. Never repeat the error of enfranchisement of women again, outside the scope of home and children.
-
Tribes of The Right
(high openness AND high orderliness) —“It seems to me that we high-openness right-wingers (like those of us attracted to Curt), who are a subset of the high-IQ right-wingers, are trying to drag the rest of the conservatives rightward kicking & screaming. We see “outside the box” truths more readily. Thus normie conservative: “No more illegal immigration” while high-openness high-IQ right-winger: “No more 3rd world immigration, period, no more women voting, etc”.—John Mark
-
Tribes of The Right
(high openness AND high orderliness) —“It seems to me that we high-openness right-wingers (like those of us attracted to Curt), who are a subset of the high-IQ right-wingers, are trying to drag the rest of the conservatives rightward kicking & screaming. We see “outside the box” truths more readily. Thus normie conservative: “No more illegal immigration” while high-openness high-IQ right-winger: “No more 3rd world immigration, period, no more women voting, etc”.—John Mark
-
Pandora’s Box of Democracy
There are always weak men. They are never sufficient in numbers, and easily shamed by the strong. There are however far too many weak women, and they will not be shamed by the strong, only doubling-down on their impulses. As such, opening Pandora’s Box by the inclusion of women into the process of political decisions, without expressly limiting the impulses of women, allowed for the combination of weak men, weak women, and those who would profit from enabling weak men and weak women – the inverse of those who traditionally carried the burden to shaming and policing weak men and weak women.
- A separate house for women would have done it.
- Limiting the vote to married households would have done it.
- Limiting the vote to married households with children and property would have done it best of all.
- But while as families we share common interests, as individuals we do not.
-
Pandora’s Box of Democracy
There are always weak men. They are never sufficient in numbers, and easily shamed by the strong. There are however far too many weak women, and they will not be shamed by the strong, only doubling-down on their impulses. As such, opening Pandora’s Box by the inclusion of women into the process of political decisions, without expressly limiting the impulses of women, allowed for the combination of weak men, weak women, and those who would profit from enabling weak men and weak women – the inverse of those who traditionally carried the burden to shaming and policing weak men and weak women.
- A separate house for women would have done it.
- Limiting the vote to married households would have done it.
- Limiting the vote to married households with children and property would have done it best of all.
- But while as families we share common interests, as individuals we do not.