—“The pen is mightier than the sword” is not a case for a benevolent pen, it is a demonstration of how to give order and efficiency to violence in one form or another.”— Hreodbeorht Røe
(brilliant)
Theme: Governance
-
“The pen is mightier than the sword” is not a case for a benevolent pen, it is a
—“The pen is mightier than the sword” is not a case for a benevolent pen, it is a demonstration of how to give order and efficiency to violence in one form or another.”— Hreodbeorht Røe (brilliant) -
“The pen is mightier than the sword” is not a case for a benevolent pen, it is a
—“The pen is mightier than the sword” is not a case for a benevolent pen, it is a demonstration of how to give order and efficiency to violence in one form or another.”— Hreodbeorht Røe
(brilliant)
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-02 12:25:00 UTC
-
There Are No Non-military Activities In The Conduct Of Revolutions
Your plan is one of conquest and defense, and if you are successful enough to propagandize then your plan of maneuver, conquest, defense, and exit was successful. There are no discounts in war that do not cause loss of capability of soldiers, other than defeating your enemy completely by use of concentration of power, deception, and surprise.
-
There Are No Non-military Activities In The Conduct Of Revolutions
Your plan is one of conquest and defense, and if you are successful enough to propagandize then your plan of maneuver, conquest, defense, and exit was successful. There are no discounts in war that do not cause loss of capability of soldiers, other than defeating your enemy completely by use of concentration of power, deception, and surprise.
-
National (Middle Class) Socialism, Vs International (Underclass) Communism
National Socialism (Tribalism) Pro Western vs. International Communism (Classism) Anti-Western. National Socialism: Defensive Strategy: Monopoly High Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public limits on and cooperation with Industry, Private commerce, Not autarkic but highly nationalist trade biases. With the purpose of policy the intergenerational family, and the suppression of the underclasses. Right of Exit. (Middle Class and Working Class Bias) International Communism: Offensive Strategy: Monopoly Low Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public control of industry, public control of commerce, Not Autarkic but Expansionist. The purpose of policy the ‘individual’, and the expansion and ‘uplifting’ of the underclasses. (Laboring Class and Underclass Bias) You know the ancient world origins of judaism, christianity, and islam are in the underclass revolution against the (white) aristocracy, by replacing tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Achilles (the wealthy farmers), with the tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Jews, Jesus, Muhammed (the poor pastoralists). Why do you think that National Socialism (Nationalist Middle Class, Economic warfare) versus International Communism (Universalist Underclass Economic Warfare) is any different in our era than the battle between the high trust middle class agrarian traders, and the low trust lower class pastoralist laborers? What is the difference between postmodernism and christianity? None. They’re both for the purpose of making false promises to the underclasses so that they use their numbers to destroy the aristocracy and create a dark age.
-
National (Middle Class) Socialism, Vs International (Underclass) Communism
National Socialism (Tribalism) Pro Western vs. International Communism (Classism) Anti-Western. National Socialism: Defensive Strategy: Monopoly High Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public limits on and cooperation with Industry, Private commerce, Not autarkic but highly nationalist trade biases. With the purpose of policy the intergenerational family, and the suppression of the underclasses. Right of Exit. (Middle Class and Working Class Bias) International Communism: Offensive Strategy: Monopoly Low Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public control of industry, public control of commerce, Not Autarkic but Expansionist. The purpose of policy the ‘individual’, and the expansion and ‘uplifting’ of the underclasses. (Laboring Class and Underclass Bias) You know the ancient world origins of judaism, christianity, and islam are in the underclass revolution against the (white) aristocracy, by replacing tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Achilles (the wealthy farmers), with the tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Jews, Jesus, Muhammed (the poor pastoralists). Why do you think that National Socialism (Nationalist Middle Class, Economic warfare) versus International Communism (Universalist Underclass Economic Warfare) is any different in our era than the battle between the high trust middle class agrarian traders, and the low trust lower class pastoralist laborers? What is the difference between postmodernism and christianity? None. They’re both for the purpose of making false promises to the underclasses so that they use their numbers to destroy the aristocracy and create a dark age.
-
Politics
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period.
-
Politics
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period.
-
Power And Voice
Laconic speech is a luxury of power. The spartans could speak as such because they mastered and made universal, martial epistemology. Most speech is either political or deceptive. The spartans needed neither. Seek power for the freedom to speak laconically. Laconic speech requires deep knowledge of the subject, extraordinary honesty, extraordinary insight, and an audience of nearly equal ability, whose experience and sentiments mirror the speaker’s. It’s wisdom is lost on the idiots. Seek the wise, so you have others to speak to. I think the modern version of laconic speech is the aphorism – which nietzsche mastered (and I try to). It allows us to speak of that which others may not yet comprehend, where the laconic merely cuts through dishonesty and posturing. It is *extremely difficult* to speak in laconic voice or aphoristic prose and it is probably, other than poetic rhyme, and poetic song, our greatest intellectual art.